JK 752 
.113 R5 
1916e 
Copy 1 



yONGRESS, 

Session, 



HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 



Report 
No. 5M. 



H. SNOWDEN MARSHALL. 



April 14, 1916. — Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to the printed. 



Mr. Moon, from the select committee appointed pursuant to H. Res. 
193, submitted the following 

REPORT. 

The select committee of the House of Representatives was ap- 
pointed under House resolution 193, which is as follows: 

[H. Res. 193, Sixty-fourth Congress, first session.] 

Resolved, That a select committee of five members be appointed forthwith by 
the Speaker to consider the report, in the nature of a statement, from the 
Judiciary Committee with reference to certain conduct of H. Snowden Mar- 
shall, and to report to the House of Representatives the facts in the case; the 
violations, if any, of the privileges of the House of Representatives or of the 
Committee on the Judiciary, or of the subcommittee thereof ; the power of the 
House to punish for contempt ; and the procedure in contempt proceedings, in 
case they find a contempt has been committed, to the end that the privileges of 
the House shall be maintahied and the rights of Members protected in the per- 
foi'manee of their official duties. 

The select committee shall have the power to send for persons and papers 
and shall submit its report to the House not later than April fourteenth, nine- 
teen hundred and sixteen. 

The report upon which this resolution was predicated and to which 
it refers is as follows : 

[House Report No. 494, Sixty-fourth Congress, first session.] 
ALLEGED OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT OF H. SNOWDEN MARSHALL. 



[April 5, 1916. — Ordered to be printed.] 

Mr. Webb, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following 
report (to accompany H. Res. 193) : 

By direction of the Committee on the Judiciary, I beg leave to make the fol- 
lowing report, in the nature of a statement, to the House of Representatives. 
On the 12th day of January, 1916, Hon. Frank Buchanan, a Representative 
in Congi-ess from the State of Illinois, arose, in his responsible position, on 
the floor of the House and impeached H. Snowden Marshall, district attorney 
for the southern district of the State of New York, charging the said H. Snow- 
den Marshall with numerous malfeasances and misfeasances and with corrupt 
and improper behavior and conduct in office. Immediately after the reading 
of said charges Representative Buchanan offered, for the immediate considera- 
tion of the House, resolution 90, which provided, among other things, "that 



2 H. SNOWDEN MARSHALL. 

the Committee on the Judiciary be directed to inquire and report whether the 
action of this House is necessary concerning the alleged official misconduct of 
H. Snowden Rlnrshall," etc. After debate on the resolution the House, upon 
motion of Mr. Fitzgerald, of New York, referred the resolution to the Committee 
on the Judiciary for its consideration and action. 

The Committee on the Judiciary immediately began the consideration of said 
resolution and called Representative Buchanan before it to make such state- 
ment and furnish such information concerning the truth of his impeachment 
charges, as set out in House resolution 90, as he was able to make and furnish. 
Thereafter, on the 27th day of January, 1916, by direction of the Judiciary 
Committee, the chairman thereof offered in the House of Representatives the 
following resolution : <;(^.' 5..,<o ^ 

[House resolution 110.] -^ A ' ,,^ V 

"Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary in bbntinuing their consid- 
eration of House resolution 90 be authorized and empowered to send for persons 
and papers, to subpoena witnesses, to administer oaths to such witnesses, and 
take their testimony. 

" The said committee is also authorized to appoint a subcommittee to act for 
and on behalf of the whole committee wherever it may be deemed advisable to 
take testimony for said committee. In case such subcommittee is appointed, it 
shall have the same powers in respect to obtaining testimony as are herein 
given to the Committee on the Judiciary, with a sergeant at arms, by himself 
or deputy, who shall attend the sittings of such subcommittee and serve the 
process of same. 

" In case the Committee on the Judiciary or a subcommittee thereof deems it 
necessary it may employ such clerks and stenographers as are required to carry 
out the siuthority given in this resolution, and the expenses so incurred shall be 
paid out of the contingent fund of tlie House. 

" The Speaker of the House of Representatives shall have authority to sign, 
and the Clerk thereof to attest, suiipcenas for witnesses, and the Sergeant at 
Arms or a deputy shall serve them." 

The said resolution was on said date unanimously agreed to. 

"Wliile further considering the said House resolution 90 and the said House 
re.solution 110, on the 31st day of January, 191G, the Committee on the Judi- 
ciary authorized the chairman to appoint a subcommittee of three to execute 
the "purposes of House resolution 110 to act for and on behalf of the full 
committee wherever it may be deemed advisable to take testimony for said 
committee, and on February 1, 1916, the chairman appointed Messrs. Ciiarle.s 
C. Carlin, Warren Gard, and John M. Nelson as members of such subcommittee. 

Thereafter the said subcommittee organized and heard the testimony of cer- 
tain witnesses in the Judiciary Committee rooms in the city of Washington. 
The subconnnittee determined, for its further information and in carrying out 
the duties assigned it under the resolution of the House of Representativos, 
that it siiould hear the testimony of certain other witnesses in the city of 
New York, and on the 2Sth day of February, 191C. the said subcommittee, under 
subpn?nas duly signed by the Speaker of the House of Representatives and 
attested by tlie Clerk thereof, caused certain witnesses to be brought before 
it, in the Federal post-oflice building in the city of New York, and continued 
the examination of witnesses upon said charges up to and including the 4th 
day of March, 191G. 

On the 3d day of March, 191G, there appeared in a New York newspaper an 
article containing, among other things, the lollowing language: 

" It is the l)(>lief in the district attorney's ofRce that the real aim of the Con- 
gress investigation is to put a stop to the criminal investigation of the pro-Ger- 
man partisans." 

On the 3(1 of March, 191G, the subcommittee called before it one Leonard R. 
Holme, who testified to the subconnnittee that he wrote the article containing 
the foregoing language, but when asked whether or not he conferred witli any- 
body in tlie district attorney's office before the article was written rep)i(>(i 
that he declined to give the source of his information. Tiie chairman of the 
subconnnittee then projiounded this question to the witness: "Did you confer 
witli INIr. Mai-s!iall before you wrote this article?" To which the witness i-epliei!, 
"I resi)ectfully decline to answer tlie question, sir." The chairman of the sulv 
committee then propounded the following question to him: "Did you confer 
with anybody in Mr. Marshall's office?" To which the witness replied, "I re- 
spectfully decline to answer that question, sir." 

D. of D. 
APR 22 1916 



^1 ^ 



H. SNOWDEN MARSHALL. 



C Wliereupon, the Sevffeant at Arms was directed by the chairman of the sub- 
committee to take cliarse of the witness and Iveep him in custody until the fur- 
- ther order of the connnittee. At 4.10 o'clock p. m. of the same day, the chair- 
man of the suhconunlttee a^ain propounded the foregoing questions to Witness 
Holme, and the following proceedings were had : 

"Mr. Cakt.in. ]\Ir. Holme, the committee has directed me to order you to 
answer the question which was asked you. Mr. Stenographer, read the testi- 
mony of Mr. Holme. 

"(Tlie entire previous testimony of Mr. Holme was read to the committee by 
the stenographer in the hearing of the committee only.) 

"I\Ir. Caeltn. ]\Ir. Holme, I hand you this article in the sixth column of page 
4 of the New York Times, dated Friday, March 3, 1916. The article is headed 
'IMarshall refuses Buchanan evidence.' I now call your attention to this para- 
graph of the article : 

" ' It is the belief in the district attorney's office that the real aim of the Con- 
gi-ess investigation is to put a stop to the criminal investigation of the pro-Ger- 
man partisans.' 

"I ask you from whom you got that information? 

"Mr. HoLJtE. That information, sir, is a deduction. I have known at the time 
these proceedings were begun in Washington, it was before the indictment of 
Congressman Buchanan, that there had been a considerable amount of talk 
around this building as to their nature. I am down here practically every day 
of my life, and I meet with a great many men who are connected with the dis- 
trict attorney's office and who are in this building in various other regular ca- 
pacities, aud I based that paragraph entirely upon my knowledge of the general 
gossip around the building and the general feeling in the building. 

"Mr. Cakt.in. Why did you not state that, instead of saying it is the belief 
in the district attorney's office? 

"Mr. Holme. Well, sir, it comes to much the same thing, does it not? The 
district attorney's office is a large organization. 

"Mr. Carlin. Is that your answer? 

"Mr. Holme. Yes, sir. 

"IMr. Carlin. Did you base that part of the article upon a conference held 
with H. Snowden Marshall or any subordinate of his in the district attorney's 
office? 

"Mr. Holme. I based that article on my general knowledge of the conditions 
surrounding this proceeding and the general opinion floating around the 
building. 

"Mr. Caklin. You state that it is the general belief in the district attorney's 
office. Now, who in the district attorney's office expressed that belief? 

"Mr. Holme. I don't think I could give you any definite names, because I 
have discussed this matter with a large number of diffei'ent people at various 
times. 

"Mr. Carlin. As a matter of fact, did anybody in the district attorney's office 
exjiress that belief? 

"Mr. Holme. Yes, sir. 

"Mr. Carlin. Who? 

"Ml-. Holme. I can only remember a very few, and I respectfully decline, as a 
ne\\si)aper man, to express their opinions, which are often given to me in general 
conversation. 

"Mr. Carlin. Was the belief expressed by Mr. Marshall or either of his 
assistants? 

"Mr. Holme. I respectfully decline to answer, sir. 

"Mr. Carlin. Mr. Stenographer, insert in the record this article which I hand 
5'ou. and the date line of the paper. 

"Mr. (jAiti). I understand yon to say, Mr. Holme, that this extract which has 
been read to you was written by you? 

"Mr. Holme. Yes, sir. 

"Mr. Gard. And the extract is this: 

" ' It is the belief of the district attorney's office that the real aim of the con- 
gressional investigation is to put a stop to the criminal investigation of the pro- 
German partisans.' 

" You wrote that? 

" IMr. Holme. Yes, sir. 

" ]Mr. Gari). And I understand also that you decline and refuse to answer 
nuestiorr^ as to whether you obtained that information from anyone in the dis- 
trict attorney's office of ithe southern district of New York? 



4 H. SNOWDEN MARSHALL. 

" Mr. Holm?:. Yes, sir. 
"Mr. Gard. You decline to answer that? 
" Mr. Holme. Yes, sir. 

" Mr. Carlin. Now, then, Mr. Holme, I am directed by the committee to order 
you to answer. that. Do you still decline? 
" ]\Ir. Holme. I do, respectfully, sir. 

" Mr. Carlin. Then, I am directed to say to you, for the record, that this 
committee determines you to be in contempt of the order of the committee and 
of the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States, and that 
for the present you will be released from the custody of the marshal until the 
committee, if it sees proper, shall proceed in the manner prescribed by statute 
in such cases. AVe want to be kind to you. We have no desire to be harsh with 
you. We realize to some extent your embarrassment. We have a duty to dis- 
charge, and we think under the circumstances we will discharge it in this way 
and release you from the custody of the Sergeant at Arms of the House." 

On Sutiu-d'ay, the 4th day of INIareh, 191G, the said H. Snowden Marshall, as 
district attorney for the southern district of New York, caused to be trans- 
mitted to C. C. Carlin, chairman of said subcommittee, then in the perfoilnance 
of its duties, as required by the House of Representatives, the following letter : 

Department of Justice, 
United States Attorney's Office, 

Neio York, March Jf, 1916. 
Sir: Yesterday afternoon, as I am informed, your honorable committee 
ordered the arrest of Mr. L. R. Holme, a representative of a newspaper which 
had published an article at which you took offense. The unfortunate gentle- 
man of the press was placed in custody under your orders. He was taken to 
the United States marshal to be placed in confinement (I do not understand 
whether his sentence was to be one day or a dozen years). The marshal very 
properly declined to receive the prisoner. This left you at a loss, and I am ad- 
vised that you tried to work your way out of the awkward situation by having 
Mr. Holme" brought back and telling him that you were disposed to be "kind" 
to him and then discharged him for the purpose of avoiding unpleasant conse- 
quences to yourselves. 

You are exploiting charges against me of oppressive conduct toward a mem- 
ber of your honorable body who is charged with a violation of law and of op- 
pressive conduct on my part toward shysters in the blackmailing and bank- 
ruptcy business. 

I may be able to lighten your labors by offering to resign if you can indicate 
anything I ever did that remotely approximates the lawless tyranny of your 
order of arrest of Mr. Holme. 

The supposed justification of your order that Mr. Holme be placed in custody 
was his refusal to answer the question you asked as to where he got the infor- 
mation on which was based the article which displeased you. 

It is not necessary for you to place anyone under arrest in order to get the 
answers to the question which you asked Mr^ Holme, because I can and will 
answer it. I gave Mr. Holme information, part of which he published and from 
which he made deductions, so that if your honorable committee has a grievance 
it is against me and not against him. 
What I told him was about as follows : 

I said that your expedition to this town was not an investigation conducted 
in good faith, but was a deliberate effort to intimidate any district attorney 
who had the temerity to present charges against one of your honorable body. 
I said that your whole proceeding here was irregular and extraordinary ; 
that 1 had never heard of such conduct of an impeachment proceeding; that 
charges of this sort were not usually heard in public until the House of Repre- 
sentatives had considered them and were willing to stand back of them. 

I pointed out to him that you, contrary to usual practice, had come here and 
had held public hearings; that among your witnesses you had invited every 
rogue that you could lay your hands on to come before you and blackguard and 
slander me and my assistants under the full privilege of testifying before a 
congressional committee. 

I told him that you had called one of my junior assistants before you and 
had attempted to make it publicly appear that his refusal to answer your ques- 
tions as to what occurred in the grand jury room in the Buchanan case was 
due solely to my orders. I said that at the time you attempted to convey this 
public impression you knew that it was misleading because I had been asked 



I 



I 



H. SNOWDEN MARSHALL. 5 

by you to produce the minutes of the grand jury and had been instructed by 
the Attorney General not to comply with your request, as you well knew. I 
showed him the telegram of the Attorney General to me and showed him a copy 
of my letter to you, dated February 29, 1916, in which I sent you a copy of the 
telegram of the Attorney General instructing me not to give you the grand 
jury minutes. 

I told him that you were traveling around in your alleged investigation of 
me with Buchanan's counsel, Walsh and David Slade, in constant conference 
with you. I said that I believed that every word of the evidence, whether in 
so-called secret sessions or not, had been placed at the disposal of these 
worthies, and that I would be just as willing to give the grand jury minutes to 
a defendant as to give them to your honorable subcommittee. 

I told him that I did not share the views which seemed to prevail in your 
subcoiumittee on this subject. I said that I regai'ded a Member of Congress 
who would take money for an unlawful purpose from any foreign agent as a 
traitor, and that it was a great pity that such a person could only be indicted 
under the Sherman law, which carries only one year in jail as punishment. 

I said that it was incomprehensible to me how your honorable subcommittee 
should rush to the assistance of an indicted defendant; how you had apparently 
resolved to prevent prosecution by causing the district attorney in charge to be 
publicly slandered. 

I told him that I would not permit the prosecution of the persons whose 
cause you had apparently espoused to be impeded by you ; I said that if you 
wanted the minutes of the grand jury in any case, you would not get them as 
long as I remained in office. You will observe from the foregoing statement 
that what Mr. Holme published may have been based on what I said. If you 
have any quarrel, it is with me, and not with him. 

It is amazing to me to think that you supposed that I did not understand 
what you have been attempting to do during your visit here. I realized that 
your effort Avas to ruin me and my office by publishing with your full approval 
the complaints of various persons who have run afoul of the criminal law under 
my administration. Your subcommittee has endeavored by insulting questions 
to my assistants and others, by giving publicity and countenance to the charges 
of rascals and by refusing to listen to the truth and refusing to examine public 
records to which your attention was directed, to publicly disgrace me and my 
office. 

I propose to make this letter public. 
Respectfully, 

H. Snowden Marshall, 

United States Attorney. 

Hon. C. C. Caklin, 

Chairman Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee 

of the House of Representatives, 
323 Federal Building, New York, N. Y. 

At the same time or before this letter was sent to the subcommittee it was 
given to the newspapers and published by them. 

On the 9th day of March, 1916, the subcommittee aforesaid, through its 
chairman, Hon. C. C. Carlin, submitted to the Committee on the Judiciary the 
foregoing letter of H. Snowden Marshall. 

On or about the 11th day of March, 1916, the following letter was received 
by the chairman of the .Judiciary Committee and immediately laid before the 
full committee : 

Department of Justice, 
United States Attorney's Office. 

New York, March 10, 1916. 

Dear Sir: lieferring to my letter of March 4, addressed to the chairman of 
the subcommittee which has recently taken testimony in New York concerning 
my administration of my office, I notice from the press that some persons 
appear to have construed by statements as directed toward your honorable 
committee as a whole. I beg to advise you that the criticisms in that letter 
wore addressed to the methods r>m"sued by the subcommittee. I do not retract 
nor modify any of those criticisms. But I did not intend (nor do I think my 
letter should be so construed) to reflect in any way upon the Judiciary Com- 
mittee, nor did I question the power of the House of Representatives to order 
such an investigation. 



6 H. SNOWDEN MARSHALL. 

If you and the other members of your committee, for whom I have hi^h re- 
gpect, have sained the impression that my letter carried any personal reflection 
upon your honorable committee, it gives me pleasure to assure you that I had 
uo such purpose. 

Respectfully, 

H. Snowden Marshall. 

Hon. Edwin Y. Wedb, 

Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, 

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 

The Judiciary Committee has carefully considered said letters in 
the light of congressional and judicial precedents as touching the 
prerogatives of the House of Representatives and its Members, and 
the committee has come to the determination that said letters, their 
publication and attendant circumstances, are of such nature that 
they should be called to the attention of the House. Fur obvious 
reasons the committee deems it advisable to take this step rather than 
to report directly upon the facts and the law in the case. I am, 
therefore, directed by the committee to report the whole matter to the 
House of Representatives w4th the recommendation that a select 
committee of five be appointed by the Speaker to report upon the 
facts in this case ; the violations, if any, of the privileges of the House 
or the Committee on the Judiciary or the subcommittee thereof ; the 
power of the House to punish for contempt; and the procedure in 
contempt proceedings, to the end that the privileges of the House 
shall be maintained and the rights of the Members protected in the 
performance of their official duties. 

The select committee appointed under House resolution 193 met 
for the hearing on Friday, April 7, 1916, at 10 a. m., and took the 
testimony of Representatives Webb, Gard, Nelson, and Carlin and 
directed the chairman to send the following letter to Hon. H. Snow- 
den Marshall, of New York, and then adjourned to 10 a.m., Monday, 

April 10, 1916 : 

Apkil 7. 1916. 
Hon. H. Snowdkn Marshall, 

United States District Attorney for the 

Southern District of New York, New York City. 
Dear Sir: Inclosed is H. Res. 193 and Report No. 494, which explain 
themselves. The select committee appointed by the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives are now engaged in the investigation of the matters referred 
to herein. We will be glad to have you appear before us, if you so desire, at 
the rooms of the Connnittee on the Post Office and Post Roads of the House 
of Repre.sentatives, in the Capitol Building, Washington, D. C, on Monday, 
April 10, 1916, at 10 o'clock a. m., and make such statement as you may desire 
before the coiimiittee touching this matter. As the time of the committee is 
limited in which to report, you will oblige us by advising by wire whether you 
desire to be present or not. This conmumication is made to you by order of 
the select committee. 

Very truly, yours, John A. Moon, 

Chairman Select Committee. 

This letter was mailed to Mr. Marshall on the 7th of April, 1916. 
On April 8, 1916, the following reply was received by wire : 

New York, N. Y., April 8, 1916. 
Hon. .Tohn a. Moon, 

Waxhiuf/ton, D. C: 
Your letter received. It will give me pleasure to appear before your commit- 
tee at the time and place mentioned in your letter. 

H. Snowden Marshall. 

The committee met again at 10 a. m., April 10, 1916, pursuant to 
adjournment, when Mr. Marshall appeared and was given a steno- 



1 



i 



H. SNOWDEN MAESHALL. 7 

graphic copy of the statements of witnesses who had testified in the 
case, and was advised that he would be given an opportunity before 
making his statement to read the same and cross-examine the wit- 
nesses. Thereupon the committee adjourned to 1.30 p.m., April 10, 
191G, this being deemed sufficient time by Mr. Marshall in which to 
examine the statements of the witnesses. 

The select committee met again at 1.30 p. m., April 10, 1916. Mr. 
Marshall appeared and made a statement in writing and testified 
orally. He also subsequently submitted an additional statement on 
April 12, 1916, and some newspaper clippings. The statements and 
testimony of all the witnesses who appeared before the select commit- 
tee are attached hereto as an appendix to this report. The newspaper 
clippings are not strictly relevant, but are filed. There was also filed 
as evidence for reference the hearings in the case of charges against 
H. Snowden Marshall, taken by a subcommittee of the Committee on 
the Judiciary in New York on February 28, 1916, and following. 
These hearings are material mainly in determining whether the sub- 
committee making the investigation was acting within the scope of 
its authority. 

FINDING OF FACTS. 

1. H. Snowden Marshall is and has been for several years past 
United States district attorney for the southern district of New York. 

2. On the 28th day of December, 1915, the grand jury in the United 
States District Court for the Southern District of New York found 
an indictment against a Member of the House, Hon. Frank Buchanan, 
and others, for the violation of a Federal Statute. (We have not 
been furnished with a copy of this indictment and therefore can not 
incorporate it in this report.) 

3. On December 14, 1915, preceding the finding of the indictment 
Hon. Frank Buchanan, a Representative in Congress from the State 
of Illinois, impeached H. Snowden Marshall, the United States dis- 
trict attorney for the southern district of New York, of malfeasance 
and misfeasance in office. On January 12, 1916, said Representative 
Buchanan again presented to the House charges and impeached the 
said H. Snowden Marshall, United States district attorney for the 
southern district of New York, as follows: 

IMPEACHMENT OF H. SNOWDEN MARSHALL. 

The Speaker. Tlie gentlemnn from Illinois [Mr. Buchanan] is recognized. 

Mr. Buchanan of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of the higliest 
privilege. By virtue of my office as a Member of the House of Representatives 
I impeach H. Snowden Marshall, United States district attorney for the 
southern district of New York, of high crimes and misdemeanors. 

I charge him with having conspired with persons, firms, and corporations, 
their agents and servants, to grant such persons, firms and corporations the 
privilege of violating various criminal, neutrality, interstate commerce, or 
custom laws of the United States in the southern district of New York. 

I charge him with securing for persons or corporations great financial profit 
in consequence of the violation of the United States laws. 

I charge him with corruptly and collusively participating in sucli conspiracies. 

I charge hira with corruptly neglecting and refusing to prosecvite gross and 
notorious violations of various criminal, neutrality, custom revenue, and anti- 
trust laws of the United States within said judicial district. 

I charge him with corruptly inducing and procuring grand juries to return 
into the district court for the southern district of New York of indictments 



8 H. SNOWDEN MARSHALL. 

charging crimes Avitliout there being evidence before said grand jury whicli 
would in any degree justify the finding and filing of such indictments. 

I charge iiim with being guilty of oppression in corruptly procuring indict- 
ments from the grand jury in said district charging reputable citizens with 
crime, although there was no evidence before the grand jury which would iu 
the least \^'arrant such charges. 

I charge him with corruptly conspiring with other persons to spread broadcast 
throughout the United States maliciously false newspaper publications and 
reports, emanating as official statements and purporting to describe results of 
investigations conducted by said United States attorney and his assistants, with 
the object of destroying friendly relations between the United States and one or 
more foreign governments. 

I charge him with unlawfully and feloniously abusing the legal process before 
the grand jury in said district of New York, the Secret Service, and the Bureau 
of Investigation and Inquiry of the Department of Justice in furtherance ,of 
such conspiracy aforesaid. 

I charge him with having knowledge of the existence of circumstances from 
which knowledge is imputed to him that large sums of money have been 
expended for or on behalf of foreign Governments and of various purveyors and 
manufacturers of war munitions for the purpose of influencing the actions of 
said United States attorney in furtherance of a conspiracy. 

I charge him with having corruptly neglected or refused to prosecute men 
who have made the port of New York, within said judicial district, a military 
or naval base for foreign belligerent powers. 

I charge him with corruptly neglecting and refusing to prosecute violations of 
Federal statutes prohibiting the loading and shipment of explosives on ships 
carrying passengers within said judicial district. 

I charge him with corruptly neglecting and refusing to prosecute violations 
of the foreign-enlistment act and laws of the United States within said district. 

I charge him with having corruptly used the powers of his office for the pur- 
pose of slandering and libeling peaceable and law-abiding people to their great 
injury. 

I charge him with having abetted, approved, acquiesced, and permitted un- 
lawful and oppressive misuse of subpoenas and other process before grand juries 
in said southern district of New York. 

I charge him with having deprived law-abiding citizens of their legal i-ights, 
privileges and immunities. 

I charge him with aiding, abetting, and approving unlawful expenditures of 
public moneys in violation of the laws of the United States. 

I charge him with being guilty of attempts by private solicitation of influ- 
encing the official actions and opinions of judges in the southern district of 
New York while in the performance of their judicial duties. 

I charge him with having used the powers of his office to cause and pi'ocure 
a discrimination iu the assignment of judges to conduct trials iu said district, 
so as to discriminate against one or more resident judges. 

I charge him with having used the powers of his office to procure or assist 
in the procurement of judges to be imported into the southern district of New' 
York from other districts for the trial of cases in said district by falsely rep- 
resenting the condition of judicial business within said district. 

I charge him with being guilty of private solicitation with intent to influence 
the official acts and decisions of judges imported as aforesaid. 

I charge him with having attempted to corruptly control decisions and 
official actions of one or more of such imported judges. 

I charge him with having procured the assignment of one or more imported 
judges for the conduct of trials in the said district for the purpose of pre- 
venting defendants in such cases from receiving a fair and impartial trial at 
the hands of resident judges, 

I charge him with being a party to a conspiracy participated in by his 
assistant district attorneys and other officials connected witli the administra- 
tion of justice in the said southern district of New York, for tlie purpose of 
unlawfully manipulating and contx'olling the selection of grand and petit jurors 
in connection with cases in the courts of said district. 

I charge him with having been guilty of acts by which the rights of the 
United States and that of individuals have been unlawfully iirejudiced and the 
orderly and fair administration of justice defeated or obstructed in one or 
more instances. 

I charge him with having employed the powers of his office for the purpose 
of shielding and to prevent the exposure of unlawful and improper conduct of 



H. SNOWDEN MARSHALL. 9 

one Jnuies W. Osborue in relation to facts involved in civil litigation which 
was itejidiiiii- in the State court in the State of New York. 

I charge him with unlawfully protecting the said Osborne and others from 
prosecution for the violation of United States laws. 

I charge him with willfully and corruptly refusing and neglecting to prose- 
cute gross and notorious violations of the United States statutes committed by 
said James W. Osborne and others in the city and State of New York within 
said district. 

I charge him with having prostituted the office of United States district 
attorney for the southern district of New York. 

I charge him with having used the powers of his said office as United 
States district attorney to corruptly and willfully defame, slander, and injure 
the good name and professional standing of law-abiding citizens of the United 
States, to their great injury, for the purpose of protecting the private indi- 
vidual interests of James W. Osborne. 

I charge him with having corruptly failed, neglected, and refused to prose- 
cute persons who, while acting as witnesses for the United States in the trial 
of causes, committed the crime of perjury, subornation of perjury, and con- 
spiracy in connection with the cases of United States against Rae Tanzer, 
United States against Frank D. Safford, and United States against Albert J. 
McCul lough et al. 

I charge him with having used and employed the United States grand jury in 
the southern district of New York for the purpose of attempting to establish 
records which might be used in defense of James W. Osborne, H. Snowden Rlar- 
shall, Roger B. Wood, and Samuel H. Hershenstein (the last two being assistant 
United States district attorneys under said H. Snowden Marshall), and not for 
the purpose of investigation of violations of the United States laws. 

I charge him with corruptly and Avillfully failing to remove certain of his 
assistant district attorneys who destroyed documentary evidence material in 
tlie trial of a pending case in the United States district court for the southern 
district of New York. 

I charge him with corruptly and maliciously causing to be instituted criminal 
proceedings against Rae Tanzer and others for the purpose of protecting James 
W. Osborne, a special United States district attorney and a personal intimate 
friend of said H. Snowden Marshall. 

I charge him with corruptly and willfully failing and refusing to present to 
the coiu't the trial of cases material and important evidence and in concealing 
or assisting and acquiescing in the concealment or destruction of material and 
important evidence relating to pending cases in the United States district court 
for the southern district of New York. 

I charge him with being corrupt, grossly negligent, and unfit to retain the 
office as United States district attorney for the southern district of New York. 

I charge him with having willfully and persistently violated the laws of the 
United States in connection with the performance by him of the duties of such 
United States district attorney for said southern district of New York. 

I charge him with having corruptly and willfully withheld and failed to pre- 
sent before the gi-and jury material and important evidence in connection with 
alleged investigations instituted before said grand jury by said H. Snowden 
Marshall in relation to the cases of United States against Rae Tanzer and 
United States against Albert J. McCullough et al., and others. 

I charge him with having corruptly and willfully refused and neglected to 
take cognizance of unlawful conduct of his assistant district attorneys in con- 
nection with the perfoi-mance by them of official duties as such assistant district 
attorneys. 

I charge him with corruptly participating in or acquiescing to the presenta- 
tion to the court in trial of cases in the southern district of New York of alleged 
evidence which he knew to be untrue and manufactured, or in the manufacture 
of and attempt to manufacture such alleged evidence. 

I charge him with i)roducing willful injury and wrong to litigants in said dis- 
trict court and to citizens of the United States by his unlawful and improper 
conduct. 

Mr. Speaker, I send up the following resolution to the desk to be read by the 
Clerk. 
' The Speaker. The Clerk will report the resolution. 

The Clerk read as follows : 

" Resolved, That the Connnittee on the Judiciary be directed to inquire and 
report whether the action of this House is necessary concerning the alleged 
official misconduct of H. Snowden Marshall ; whether he has conspired with 



10 H. SNOWDEN MAKSHALL. 

persons, fii-nis, and corporations, their agents and servants, to grant such per- 
sons, firms, and corporations the privilege of viohiting various criminal, neu- 
trality, interstate-connnerce, or custom laws of the United States in the south- 
ern district of New York ; whether he has secured for persons or corporations 
great financial profit in consequence of the violation of the United States laws ; 
whether he has corruptly and collusively participated in such conspiracies; 
whether he has corruptly neglected and refused to prosecute gross and notorious 
violations of various criminal, neutrality, custom-revenue, and antitrust laws 
of the United States within said judicial district; whether he has corruptly 
induced and procured grand juries to return into the district court for the 
southern district of New York indictments charging crimes without there 
being evidence before said grand jury which would in any degree justify the 
finding and tiling of such indictments ; whether he has been guilty of oppres- 
sion in corruptly procuring indictments from the grand jury in said district, 
charging reputable citizens with crime although there was no evidence before 
the grand jury which would in the least warrant such charges ; whether he 
has corruptly conspired with other persons to spread broadcast throughout 
the United States maliciously false newspaper publications and reports emanat- 
ing as ofTicial statements and purporting to describe results of investigations 
conducted by said United States attorney and his assistants with the object 
of destroying friendly relations between the United States and one or more 
foreign governments ; whether he has iinlawfuUy and feloniously abused the 
legal process before the grand jury in said district of New I'^ork, the Secret 
Service, and the Bureau of Investigation and Inquiry of the Department of 
Justice in furtherance of such conspiracy aforesaid ; whether he has knowledge 
or whether there are in existence circumstances from which knowledge is 
imputed to him, that large sums of money have been expended for or on 
behalf of foreign governments and of various purveyors and manufacturers of 
war munitions for the purpose of influencing the actions of said United States 
attorney in furtherance of a conspiracy ; whether he has corruptly neglected 
and refused to prosecute men who have made the port of New York within 
said judicial district a military and naval base for foreign belligerent powers ; 
whether he has corruptly neglected and i-efused to prosecute violations of 
the Federal statutes prohibiting the loading and shipment of explosives on 
ships carrying passengers within said judicial district; whether he has cor- 
ruptly neglected and refused to pi'osecute violations of the foreign enlistment 
act and laws of the United States ; whether he has corruptly used the powers 
of his office for the purpose of slandering and libeling peaceable and law- 
abiding people to their great injury ; whether he has abetted, approved, 
acquiesced in, and permitted unlawful and oppi'essive misuse of subpoenas 
and other process before the grand juries in said southern district of New 
York; whether he has deprived law-abiding citizens of their legal rights, 
privileges, and immunities ; whether he has aided, abetted, and approved 
unlawful expenditures of public moneys in violation of the laws of the United 
States; whether he has been guilty of^ attempts by private solicitation to 
influence the official actions and opinions of judges In the southern district of 
New York while in the performance of their judicial duties; whether he has 
used the powers of his oRice to cause and procure a discrimination in the 
assignment of judges to conduct trials in said district so as to discriminate 
against one or more resident judges ; whether he has used the powers of his 
oflice to procure or assist in the procurement of judges to be imported into 
the southern district of New Y'ork from other districts for the trial of cases 
in said district by falsely representing the condition of judicial business 
within said district; whether he has been guilty of private solicitation with 
intent to influence the official acts and decisions of judges importetl as afore- 
said ; whether he has corruptly attempted to control decisions and official 
actions of one or more of such imported judges; whether he has procured the 
assignment of one or more imported judges for the conduct of ti'ials in the said 
district for the purpose of preventing defendants in such cases from receiving 
a fair and impartial trial at the hands of i*esident judges; whether he has 
been a party to a conspiracy participated in by his assistant district attorneys 
and other ofticials connected with the administration of justice in the said 
southern district of New York, for the purpose of unlawfully manipulating and 
controlling the selection of grand and petit jurors in connection with cases in 
the courts of said district; whether he has been guilty of acts by which the 
rights of the United States and that of individuals have been unlawfully 
prejudiced and the orderly and fair administration of justice defeated or 



H. SNOWDEN MAKSHALL. 11 

obstructed in one or more instances; whether he has employed the powers of 
his oflice for the purpose of shielding and to prevent the exposure of unlawful 
and improper conduct of one James W. Osborne in relation to facts involved 
in civil litigation which was pending in the State court in the State of New 
Yorlc ; whether he unlawfully jn-otected the said Osborne and others from prose- 
cution for the violation of United States laws; whether he has willfully and 
corruptly refused and neglected to prosecute gross and notorious violations of 
the United States Statutes committed by said James W. Osborne and others 
in the city and State of New York within said district ; whether he has prose- 
cuted the oflice of the United States district attorney for the southern district 
of New York; whether he has used the powers of his said othce as United 
States district attorney to corruptly and willfully defame, slander, and injure 
tlie good name and professional standing of law-abiding citizens of the United 
States to their great injury for the purpose of protecting the private individual 
interests of James W. Oslwrne ; whether he has corruptly failed, neglected, and 
refused to prosecute persons who, while acting as witnesses for the United 
States in the trial of causes, committed the crime of perjury, subornation of 
perjury, and conspiracy in connection with the cases of United States v. Rae 
Tanzer, United States i». Frank D. Safford, and United States v. Albert J, 
McCullough et al. ; whether he used and employed the United States grand jury 
in the southern district of New York for the purpose of attempting to establish 
records, which might be used in defense of James W. Osborne, H. Snowden 
Marshall, Roger B. Wood, and Samuel H. Hershenstein (the last two being 
assistant United States district attorneys under said H. Snowden Marshall), 
and not for the purpose of investigation of violations of the United States laws ; 
whether he has corruptly and willfully failed to remove certain of his assistant 
district attorneys who destroyed documentary evidence material in the trial 
of a pending case in the United States district court for the southern district 
of New York; whether he corruptly and maliciously caused to be instituted 
criminal proceedings against Rae Tanzer and others for the purpose of pro- 
tecting James AV. Osborne, a special United States district attorney and a per- 
sonal intimate friend of said H. Snowden Marshall; whether he has corruptly 
and willfully failed and refused to present to the court the trial of cases 
material and important evidence and in concealing or assisting and acquiescing 
in the concealment or destruction of material and important evidence relating 
to pending cases in the United States district court for the southern district 
of New York : wheher he is corrupt, grossly negligent, and unfit to retain the 
office as United States district attorney for the southern district of New York ; 
whether lie has willfully and persistently violated the laws of the United States 
in connection with the performance by him of the duties of such United States 
district attorney for said southern district of New York ; whether he has cor- 
ruptly and willfully withheld and failed to present before the grand jury 
material and important evidence in counnection with alleged investigations 
instituted before said grand jury by said H. Snowden Marshall in relation to 
the cases of United States v. Rae Tanzer and United States v. Albert J. McCul- 
lough et al. and others ; whether he has corruptly and willfully refused and 
neglected to take cognizance of unlawful conduct of his assistant district 
attorneys in connection with the performance by them of official duties as 
such assistant district attorneys ; whether he has corruptly participated in or 
acquiesced to the presentation to the court in trial of cases in the southern 
district of New Y''ork of alleged evidence which he knew to be untrue and 
manufactured, or in the manufacture of and attempt to manufacture such 
alleged evidence ; whether he has produced willful injury and wrong to liti- 
gants in said district court and to citizens of the United States by his unlawful 
and improper conduct ; whether he has been guilty of any misbehavior for which 
he should be impeached. 

"And in making this investigation the said committee is hereby authorized to 
send for persons and papers, administer oaths, take testimony, employ a clerk 
and stenographer, and is also authorized to appoint a subcommittee to act for 
and on l)ehalf of the whole committee whenever and wherever it may be deemed 
advisable to take testimony for the use of said committee. The said subcom- 
mittee wliile so employed shall have the same powers in respect to obtaining 
testimony as are herein given to said Committee on the Judiciary, with a 
sergeant at arms, by himself or deputy, who shall serve the process of said 
committee or subcommittee and shall attend the sitting of the same as ordered 
and directed thereby. The Speaker shall have authority to sign and the Clerk 
to attest subpoenas for any witness or witnesses." 



12 H. SNOWDEN MARSHALL. 

This resolution (afterwards numbered 90) was on the same day 
referred by the House to the Committee on the Judiciary. 

4. On the 27th day of January, 1916, the House passed H. Res. 110, 
which is as follows: 

[House resolution 110, Sixty-fourth Congress, first session.] 

Resolved, That the Committee on the .Tudicinry in continuing their considera- 
tion of H. Kes. 90 be authorized and empowered to send for persons and papers, 
to subpoena witnesses, to administer oaths to such Avitnesses, and take their 
testimony. 

The said committee is also authorized to appoint a sul)committee to act for 
and on behalf of the whole committee wherever it may be deemed advisable to 
take testimony for said connnittee. In case such subcommittee is appointed it 
shall liave the same powers in respect to obtaining testimony as are herein 
given to the Committee on the Judiciary, with a sergeant at arms, by him.self 
or deputy, who shall attend the sittings of such subcommittee and serve the 
process of same. 

In case the Committee on the Judiciary or a subcoAmittee thereof deems it 
necessary it may employ such clerks and stenographers as are required to 
carry out the authority given in this resolution, and the expenses so incurred 
shall be paid out of the contingent fund of the House. 

The Speaker of the House of Representatives shall have authority to sign, 
and the Clerk thereof to attest, subpnenas for witnesses, and the Sergeant at 
Arms or a deputy shall serve them. 

5. That Representatives Carlin, Gard, and Nelson were appointed 
by the Judiciary Committee of the House a subcommittee to hear 
and report under the House resolution the facts as to the impeach- 
ment charges heretofore mentioned against H. Snowden Marshall, 
United States district attorney for the southern district of New 
York. 

6. That wdiile said committee were hearing testimony in New 
York City as to the truth of said charges in accordance with the 
resolution and pursuant to authority given to them, that H. Snow- 
den Marshall, the person against whom said impeachment proceed- 
ing was pending, without just cause published in the New York 
Times, a daily paper issued in the city of New York, and thereafter 
delivered to said sitbcommittee aforementioned the following letter: 

Department of Justice, 
United States Attorney's Office, 

. New York, March 4, 1916. 

Sir : Yesterday afternoon, as I am informed, your honorable committee or- 
dered the arrest of Mr. li. R. Holme, a representative of a newspaper which had 
published an article at which you took offense. The imfortunate gentleman of 
the press was i)laced in custody under your orders. He was taken to the 
United States marshal to be placed in confinement (I do not understand 
whether his sentence was to be one day or a dozen years). The marshal very 
properly declined to receive the prisoner. This left you at a loss, and I am 
advised that you tried to work your way out of the awkward situation by hav- 
ing Mr. Holme brought back and telling him that you were disposed to be 
" kind " to him and then discharged him for the purpose of avoiding unpleasant 
consequences to yourselves. 

You are exploiting charges against me of oppressive conduct toward a mem- 
ber of your honorable body who is charged with a violation of law and of op- 
pressive conduct on my part toward shysters in the blackmailing and bank-" 
ruptcy business. 

I may be able to lighten your labors by offering to resign if you can indicate 
anything I ever did that remotely approximates the lawless tyranny of your 
order of arrest of Mr. Holme. 

The supposed justification of your order that Mr. Holme be placed in custody 
was his refusal to answer the question you asked as to where he got the in- 
formation on which was based the article which displeased you. 



H. SNOWDEN MARSHALL. 13 

It is not necessary for you to place anyone under arrest iu order to get the 
answers to the question which you asked Mr. Hohne, because I can and will 
answer it. I gave Mr. Holme information, part of which he published and from 
which he made deductions, so that if your honorable committee has a grievance 
it is against me and not against him. 

What I told him was al)out as follows : 

I said that your expedition to this town was not an investigation conducted 
in good faith, but was a deliberate effort to intimidate any district attorney 
who had the temerity to present charges against one of your honorable body. 

I said that your whole proceeding here was irregular and extraordinary ; 
that I had never heard of such conduct of an impeachment proceeding; that 
charges of this sort were not usually heard in public until the House of Repre- 
sentatives had considered them and were willing to stand back of them. 

I pointed out to him that you, contrary to usual practice, had come here and 
had held public hearings ; that among your witnesses you had invited every 
rogue that you could lay your hands on to come before you and blackguard and 
slander me and my assistants under the full privilege of testifying before a 
congressional committee. 

I told him that you had called one of my junior assistants before you and 
had attempted to make it publicly appear that his refusal to answer your 
questions as to what occurred in the grand jury room in the Buchanan case 
was due solely to my orders. I said that at the time you attempted to convey 
this public impression you knew that it w^as misleading because I had been 
asked by you to produce the minutes of the grand jury and had been instructed 
by the Attorney General not to comply with your request, as you well knew. T 
showed him the telegram of the Attorney General to me and showed him a 
copy of my letter to you, dated February 29, 1916, in which I sent you a copy 
of the telegram of the Attorney General instructing me not to give you the 
grand jury minutes. 

I told him that you were traveling around in your alleged investigation of 
me with Buchanan's counsel, Walsh and David Slade, in constant conference 
with you. I said that I believed that every word of the evidence, whether in 
so-called secret sessions or not, had been placed at the disposal of these 
worthies, and that I would be just as willing to give the grand jury minutes to 
a defendant as to give them to your honorable subcommittee. 

I told him that I did not share the views which seemed to prevail in your 
subconnnittee on this subject. I said that I regarded a Member of Congress 
who would take money for an unlawful purpose from any foreign agent as a 
traitor, and that it was a great pity that such a person could only be indicted 
under the Sherman law, which carries only one year in jail as punishment. 

I said that it was incomprehensible to me how your honorable subcommittee 
should rush to the assistance of an indicted defendant ; how you had apparently 
resolved to prevent prosecution by causing the district attorney in charge to be 
publicly slandered. 

I told him that I would not permit the prosecution of the persons whose 
cause you had apparently espoused to be impeded by you; I said that if you 
wanted the minutes of the grand jury in any case, you would not get them as 
long as I remained in office. 

You will observe from the foregoing statement that what Mr. Holme published 
may have been based on what I said. If you have any quarrel, it is with me 
and not with him. 

It is amazing to me to think that you supposed that I did not understand 
what you have been attempting to do during your visit here. I realized that 
your effort was to ruin me and my office by publishing with your full approval 
the complaints of various persons who have run afoul of the criminal law under 
my administration. Your subcommittee has endeavored by insulting questions 
to my assistants and others, by giving publicity and countenance to the charges 
of rascals, and by refusing to listen to the truth and i-efusing to examine public 
records to which your attention was directed to publicly disgrace me and my 
office. 

I propose to make this letter public. 

Respectfully, H. Snowden Maeshall, 

United States Attorney. 

Hon. C. C. Carltn, 

Chairinan Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee 

of the House of Representatives, 

323 Federal Building, New York, N. Y. 



14 H. SNOWDEN MAKSHALL. 

7. That on March 10, 1916, the said H. Snowden Marshall pub- 
lished, in reference to the said subcommittee heretofore named, the 

following letter : 

Department of Justice, 
United States Attorney's Office, 

New York, March 10, WIG. 
Dear Sir : Referring to my letter of Rlarch 4, addressed to the chairman of the 
suhcommittee which has recently talvcn testimony in New Yorlv concerning my 
administration of my office, I notice from the f)ress that some persons appear to 
have construed my statements as directed toward yonr honorable committee as a 
whole. I beg to advise you thnt the criticisms in that letter were addressed to 
the methods pursued by the subconmiittee. I do not retract nor modify any of 
those criticisms. But I did not intend (nor do I think my letter should be so 
construed) to reflect in any way upon the Judiciary Committee, nor did I ques- 
tion the power of the House of Representatives to order such an investigation. 

If you and the other members of your committee, for whom I have high re- 
spect, have gained the impression that my letter carried any personal reflection 
upon your honorable committee, it gives me pleasure to assure you that I had no 
such purpose. 

Ilespectfully, 

H. Snowden Marshall. 
Hon. Edwin Y. Webb, 

Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, 

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 

These are the material facts in the case. 

8. We conclude and find that the aforesaid letter written and pub- 
lished by said H. Snowden Marshall to Hon. C, C. Carlin, chairman 
of the subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee of the House of Eep- 
resentatives, on March 4, 1916 (and copied herein in finding of fact 
No. 6; also in Report No, 494 copied herein), is as a whole and in seve- 
ral of the separate sentences defamatory and insulting and tends to 
bring the House into public ccntempt and ridicule, and that the said 
H. Snowden Marshall, by writing and publishing the same, is guilty 
of contempt of the House of Representatives of the United States be- 
cause of the violation of its privileges, its honor and its dignity. 

9. We find that Mr. Marshall's testimony is an aggravation of his 
contempt. 

COMMEMT ON LAW AND FACTS. 

Mr. Marshall denies any intention to insult or stand in contempt of 
the Judiciary Committee or the House of Representatives, but he 
practically concedes in his testimony his contempt for the subcom- 
mittee and his desire by these publications to bring the subcom- 
mittee into ridicule and disrepute. If this is not wholly conceded by 
him in his testimony, it is certainly very fully proven. He reaffirms 
in his testimony the views heretofore expressed by him in the letters 
referred to against the subcommittee, and declines to offer any 
apology or retraction of the offensive matter in the letters contained, 
but rather reiterates and reaffirms it and thereby aggravates his 
contempt. In our opinion it is inmiaterial to the determination of 
this case whether the defendants Buchanan and others are guilty, 
as charged in the indictment in the district court of New Yoi'k. or 
not, or whether the impeachment charges again'^t H. Snowden Mar- 
shall are true or not. Both may be guilty or both may be innocent, 
or one guilty and the other innocent, with effect on the findings 
in this case. Therefore the select committee has made no investiga- 
tion nor does it express any opinion as to the merits of either of said 



H. SNOWDEN MARSHALL. 15 

cases. We are considering nnder the resolution whether or not the 
facts herein set forth constitute a contempt by a violation of the 
privileges of the House of Kepresentatives on the part of H. Snowden 
Marshall. No legislative body consisting of a large number of 
members can move from one place to another to take testimony in 
cases where its power and authority or dignity is called into question. 
Its power in this respect mu?t, therefore, necessarily be delegated to 
one of its committees or a subcommittee by a proper resolution, as 
was done in this case. This delegation of power to a subcommittee 
is lawful, and carries with it all of the authority belonging to the 
House in the execution of the immediate purpose for which the com- 
mittee was called into existence. 

Any conduct that would be a violation of the privileges of the 
House if directed against the House in the first place, would be a 
contempt against the House and a breach of its privileges when 
directed against one of its committees or subcommittees appointed 
by authority of the House to do a specific thing and acting within 
its delegated power and in the scope of its authority. Any other 
view would leave the House powerless to protect its honor and 
dignity and its constitutional rights. It would set at defiance the 
sovereignty of the people represented by the House. That the House 
as a representative body has the inherent power to protect itself from 
defamation and all slanderous and lawless conduct that avouIcI bring 
it into reproach and popular contempt, whether uttered or committed 
in the presence of the House or elsewhere, has not been disputed 
since the case of Anderson v. Dunn (6 Wheaton, 201). Offensive, 
abusive, and defamatory language against a ccmmittee of the House 
acting Avithin its authority is offensive, abusive, and defamatory 
against the House, and is just as dangerous to the integrity of that 
body as if it had been committed in its presence. 

Mr. Justice Johnson in delivering the opinion in the case referred 
to, Anderson v. Dunn, among other things said : 

It is certainly true tliat there is no power given by the Constitution to 
either House to punisli for contempts, except when conuuitted by their own 
IMenibers. Nor does the .iudicial or criminal power given to the United States, 
in any part, expressly extend to tlie Infliction of punisliment for contempt of 
either house, or any one coordinate branch of tlie Government. Sliall we. there- 
fore, decide that no such power exists? * * * But if there is one maxim that 
necessarily rides over all others, it is that the public functionaries nuist be left 
at liberty to exercise the powers wliich the people have intrusted to them. 
The intere.sts and dignity of those who created them require the exertion of 
the powers indispensable to the attainment of the ends of their creation. Nor 
is a casual conflict with the riglits of particular individuals any reason to be 
ui'ged against the exercise of sucli powers. =i' * * That "the safety of the 
people is the supreme law," not only comports with but is indispensable to Ihe 
exercise of those powers in their public functionaries, without whicli that 
safety can not be guarded. On this principle it is that courts of justice are 
universally acknowledged to be vested by their very crenticn with power to 
Impose silence, re.spect, and decorum in their presence, and submission to their 
lawful mandates, and, as a corollary to this proposition, to preserve themselves 
and their oflicers from the appi-oach and insults of i)()llution. 

It is true that the courts of iustice of f'e United States are vested, by express 
statute i)rovision, with power to fine and imprison for contempts; but it does not 
follow from this circumstance that they would not have exercised that power 
without the aid of the statute or not. in cases, if such should occur, to which 
such statute provision may not extend ; on the contrary, it is a legislative asser- 
tion of this right, as incidental to a grant of .iudicial power, and can "only be 
considered either as an instance of abundant caution or a legislative declaration 



16 H. SNOWDEN MAESHALL. 

that the power of piiiiishing for contempt shtill not extend beyond its known and 
acknowledged limits of tine and imprisonment. 

But it is contended that if this power in the House of Representatives is to be 
asserted on the jilea of necessity, the ground is too broad and the result too 
indefinite; that the executive and every coordinate and even subordinate branch 
of the Government may i-esort to the same justillcation, and the whole assume 
to themselves, in the exercise of this ])ower, the most tyrannical licentiousness. 

This is umpiestionably an evil to be guarded against, and if the doctrine may 
be pushed to that extent it unist be a bad doctrine, and is .justly denounced. 

But what is the alternative? The argument obviously leads to the total 
annihilation of the power of the House of Representatives to guard itself from 
contempts, and leaves it exposed to every indignity and interruption that rude- 
ness, caprice, or even conspiracy may meditate against it. This result is 
fraught with too much absurdity not to bring into doubt the soundness of any 
argument frcnn which it is derived. That a delilierate assembly, clothed with 
the majesty of the people, and charged with the care of all that is dear to them ; 
composed of the most distinguished citizens, selected and drawn together from 
every quarter of a great Nation ; whose deliberations are required by public 
opinion to be conducted undei' the eye of the public, and whose decisions must 
be clothed with all that sanctity which unlimited confidence in their wisdom 
and purity can inspire ; that such an assembly should not possess the power 
to suppress rudeness, or i-epel insult, is a supposition too wild to be suggested. 
And, accordingly, to avoid the pressure of these considerations, it has been 
argued that the right of the respective Houses to exclude from their presence, 
and their absolute control within their own walls, carry with them the right 
to punish contempts committed in their presence ; while the absolute legislative 
power given to (Congress within this District enables them to provide by law 
against all other insults against which there is any necessity for providing. 

It is to be observed that, so far as the issue of this cause is implicated, this 
argument yields all right of the plaintiff in error to a decision in his favor ; 
for, nonconstat, from th(> pleadings, but that this warrant issued for an offense 
conunitted in the immediate presence of the House. 

Nor is it immaterial to notice what difficulties the negation of this right in the 
House of Representatives draws after it, when it is considered that the conces- 
sion of ths power, if exercised within their walls, relinquishes the great grounds 
of the argument, to wit, tlie want of an express grant, and the unrestricted and 
undefined nature of the power here set up. For why should the House be at 
liberty to exercise an ungranted, an unlimited, and undefined power within 
their walls, any more than without them? If the analogy with individual right 
and power be resorted to, it will reach no further than to exclusion, and it 
requires no exuberance of imagination to exhibit the ridiculous consequences 
which might result from such a restriction, Imposed upon the conduct of a 
deliberative assembly. 

In Nugent v. Beale (Smith's Digest of Decisions and Precedents, 
601), the court says: 

The jurisdiction of the Senate in cases of contempt of its authority depends 
upon the same ground and reasons upon which the acknowledged jurisdiction of 
other judicial tribunals rests, to wit, the necessity of such jurisdiction to enable 
the Senate to exercise its high constitutional functions — a necessity at least 
equal to that which supports the like jurisdiction which has been exercised by 
all judicial tribunals and legislative assemblies in this country from its first 
settlement, and in England from time immemorial. 

In Hinds' Precedents of the House of Representatives, vohnne 2, 
under the heading of Power to Punish for Contempt, pages 1046 to 
1142, may be foimd the digest of the decisions sustaining the power 
of the House to determine what is contempt and to punish for the 
same. These decisions are made by the House and by the Senate 
nnd the Supreme Court of the United States. Reference is made also 
to Rawle on the Constitution, page 48, and Story on the Constitution, 
vohime 1, section -847. 

We find, therefore, that the House has full power to punish for con- 
tempt committed in its presence or not within its presence, by pub- 



H. SNOWDEN MARSHALL. 17 

lication of matter that is defamatory against it or its committee law- 
fully constituted and acting within its authority. We find as stated 
that the privileges of the House in this case were breached by H. 
Snowden Marshall by the letter which he wrote to the subcommittee, 
heretofore referred to, and copied in Report No. 494 herein contained. 
This letter as a M'hole is insulting, def amatorj^, and a clear expression 
of contempt. The purpose for which it was written and printed was 
to defame — to bring into ridicule and contempt — the subcommittee of 
the Judiciary Committee having under investigation the impeach- 
ment charges against H. Snowden Marshall. It was as much as viola- 
tion of the privileges of the House to have directed a scurrilous and 
offensive letter of this character against one of its committees as if it 
had been addressed directly to the House. 

It is proper for us to say that Mr. Marshall was given every 
opportunit}^ to retract or apologize or in some way modify his state- 
ments contained in the letter. Parts of the letter containing the most 
defamatory matter were read to him, and he was asked if he meant 
to still say that that was true. He reaffirmed and reasserted the 
same, onl}- with the statement that it Avas intended to criticize the 
procedure of the subcommittee and was not intended as a contempt 
of the House. It is clear that if the House could tolerate such a 
construction of this letter and could tolerate such vile and defama- 
tory language against one of its committees, it would be powerless 
to conduct impeachment trials or perform any other duty without 
living under the disgrace of the contempt that would necessarily 
come to a body so unmindful of its duties to the people as to permit 
such insult and injury. 

' SUMMARY. 

Article II, section 4, of the Constitution says: 

The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States shall 
be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, 
or other high crimes and misdemeanors. 

A United States district attorney is a civil officer within the mean- 
ing of this section of the Constitution. (See Eawle on Constitution, 
213; 1 Story on Constitution, 790; Bouvier Dictionary, p. 319 of 

vol. 1.) 

The impeachment of a civil officer must be by the House of Eep- 
resentatives. (United States Constitution, Article I, section 2.) 
Impeachments are judicial in their nature. 

The committee or subcommittee of the House appointed to investi- 
gate the facts under an impeachment proceeding pending in the 
House, and proceeding within the scope of their authority to perform 
this duty in taking testimony, is acting for and in place of the 
House. 

A contempt by word, act, publication, or otherwise of a committee 
having jurisdiction in such cases and acting within the same is a 
contempt of the House which appointed it, and may be punished as 
such. 

In this case Mr. Marshall was and is a United States district 
attorney. He was impeached in conformity to the Constitution. 

The subcommittee was appointed and had jurisdiction in the mat- 
ter to make the inquiry it was engaged in. 
37214^H. Kept. .544, 64-1 2 



18 H. SNOWDEN MARSHALL. 

Mr. Mai'sliairs letter of March 4, 1916, heretofore referred to is 
defamatory and tends to bring the committee and House into con- 
tempt and ridicule. By the printing and publication of the same Mr. 
Marshall violated the privileges of the House, was guilty of con- 
tempt, and is guilty of contempt of the House of Representatives 
until he purges himself thereof or is purged by punishment. 

The power of the House to punish for contempt is not confined to 
a reprimand. Punishment may be inflicted in the discretion of the 
House for a period not longer than the duration of the Congress 
acting. 

As to the method of procedure that should be followed in the 
House in trial of the said H. Snowden Marshall for the contempt 
Avhich the committee finds that he has committed, w^e recommend the 
passage of the following resolution : 

Resolved, That the Speaker do issue his warrant, directed to the Sergeant at 
Arms, coinniandinsi- liim to take in custody, wlierever to lie found, the hody of 
H. Snowden Marshall, of the State of New York, and to proceed fortliwith to 
bring the said H. Snowden Marshall to the bar of the House of Representa- 
tives, to answer the charge that he, on March 4, 1916, in the city of New York, 
did violate the privileges of the House of Rei»resentatives of the United States 
by writing and caiising to be published the following letter : 

Department of .Justice, 
United States Attorney's Office, 

New York, March J,, 1916. 

Sir : Yesterday afternoon, as I am informed, your honorable committee or- 
dered the arrest of Mr. L. R. Holme, a representative of a newspaper which had 
published an article at which you took olfense. The unfortunate gentleman of 
the press was placed in custody under your orders. He was taken to the 
United States marshal to be placed in confinement (I do not understand 
whether his sentence was to be one day or a dozen years). The marshal very 
properly declined to receive the prisoner. This left you at a loss, and I am 
advised that you tried to work your way out of the awkward situation by 
having Mr. Holme brought back and telling him that you were disposed to be 
" kind " to him and then discharged him.for the purpose of avoiding unpleasant 
consequences to yourselves. 

You are exploiting charges against uie of oppressive conduct toward a mem- 
ber of your honorable body who is charged with a violation of law and of 
oppressive conduct on my part toward shysters in the blackmailing and bank- 
ruptcy business. 

I may be able to lighten your labors by offering to resign if you can indicate 
anything I ever did that remotely approximates the lawless tyranny of your 
order of arrest of Mr. Holme. 

The supposed justification of your order that Mr. Holme be placed in custody 
was his refusal to answer the question you asked as to where he got the infor- 
mation on which was based the article which displeased you. 

It is not necessary for you to place anyone under arrest in order to get the 
answers to the question which you asked Mr. Holme, because I can and will 
answer it. I gave Mr. Holme information, part of which he published and from 
Avhich he made deductions, so that if your honorable committee has a grievance 
it is against me and not against him. 

What I told him was about as follows : 

I said that your expedition to this town was not an investigation conducted" 
in good faith, but was a deliberate effort to intimidate any district attorney who 
had the temerity to present charges against one of your honorable body. 

I said that your whole proceeding here was irregular and extraordinary ; that 
I had never heard of such conduct of an impeachment proceeding ; that charges 
of this sort were not usually heard in public until the House of Representatives 
had considered them and were willing to stand back of them. 

I pointed out to him that you. contrary to usual practice, had come here and 
had held public hearings; that among your witnesses you had invited every 
rogue that you could lay your hands on to come before you and blackguard and 
slander me and my assistants under the full privilege of testifying before a 
congressional committee. 



H. SNOWDEN MARSHALL. 19 

I told hiin that you hiid called one of ray junior assistants before vou and 
had attempted to make it publicly appear that his refusal to answer your ques- 
tions as to what occurred in the grand jury room in the Buchanan case was due 
solely to my orders. I said that at the time you attempted to convey this public 
impression you knew that it was misleading- because I had been asked by you 
to produce tlie minutes of the grand jury and had been instructed by the Attor- 
ney General not to comply with your request, as you well knew. I showed him 
the telegram of the Attorney General to me and showed him a copy of my letter 
to you, dated February 29, 1916, in which I sent you a copy of the telegram of 
the Attorney General instructing me not to give you the grand jury minutes. 

I told him that you were traveling around in your alleged investigation of me 
with Buchanan's counsel, ^^'alsh and David Slade, in constant conference with 
you. I said that I believed that every word of the evidence, whether in so- 
called secret sessions or not, had been placed at tlie disposal of these worthies, 
and that I would be just as willing to give the grand jury minutes to a defend- 
ant as to give them to your honorable subcommittee. 

I told him that I did not share the views which seemed to prevail in your 
subcommittee on this subject. I said that I regarded a Member of Congress 
who would take money for an unlawful purpose from any foreign agent as a 
traitor, and that it was a great pity that such a person could only be indicted 
under the Sherman law, which carries only one year in jail as punishment. 

I said that it was incomprehensible to me how your honorable subcommittee 
should rush to the assistance of an indicted defendant; how you had appar- 
ently resolved to prevent prosecution by causing the district attorney in charge 
to be publicly slandered. 

I told him that I would not permit the prosecution of the persons whose 
cause you had apparently espoused to be impeded by you ; I said that if you 
wanted the minutes of the grand jury in any case, you would not get them as 
long as I remained in office. 

You will observe from the foregoing statement that what Mr. Holme pub- 
lished may have been based on what I said. If you have any quarrel, it is 
with me, and not with him. 

It is amazing to me to think that you supposed that I did not understand 
what you have been attempting to do during your visit here. I realized that 
your effort was to , ruin me and my office by publishing with your full ap- 
proval the complaints of various persons who have run afoul of the criminal 
law under my administration. Your subcommittee has endeavored by insult- 
ing questions to my assistants and others, by giving publicity and countenance 
to the charges of rascals and by I'efusing to listen to the truth and refusing 
to examine public records to which your attention was directed, to publicly 
disgrace me and my office. 

I propose to make this letter public. 
Respectfully, 

H. Snowden Marshall, 

United States Attorney. 

Hon. C. C. Carlin, 

Chairman Suhcommittee of the Judiciary Committee 

of the Rouse of Representatives, 

323 Federal Building, New York, N. Y. 

That the said H. Snowden Marshall, in writing and publishing said 
letter, was guilty of a breach of the privileges and a contempt of the 
House of Representatives, and that the said H. Snowden Marshall 
be furnished with a copy of this resolution, and a copy of the report 
of the select committee of the House of Representatives, appointed to 
investigate the charges made against him in the House of Represent- 
atives. 

Resolved, That when H. Snowden Marshall shall be brought to 
the bar of the House, to answer the charge of having violated the 
privileges of the House of Representatives, as afore set out, the 
Speaker shall then cause to be read to said H. Snowden Marshall the 
findings of fact and findings of law by the special committee of the 
House, charged with the duty of investigating whether or not the 



20 H. SNOWDEN MARSHALL. 

said H. Snowden Marshall had violated the privileges of the House 
of Representatives, or was in contempt of same; the Speaker shall 
then inquire of said H. Snowden Marshall if he desires to be heard, 
and to have counsel on the charge of being in contempt of the House 
of Representatives for having violated its privileges/ If the said 
H. Snowden Marshall desires to avail himself of either of these 
privileges, the same shall be granted him. If not, the House shall 
thereupon proceed to take order in the matter. 

John A. Moon. 

John N. Garner. 

Charles R. Crisp. t^ 

John A. Sterling. 

I. L. Lenroot. 



^1 



APPENDIX. 



BEFORE A SPECIAL COMMITTEE OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTA- 
TIVES TO CONSIDER THE REPORT FROM THE JUDICIARY COM- 
MITTEE WITH REFERENCE TO CERTAIN CONDUCT OF H. SNOWDEN 
MARSHALL. 

House of Representatives, 
Washington, D. C, Friday, April 7, 1916. 
The special committee met at 10 o'clock a. m., Hon. John A. 
Moon presidmg. 

Present: Representatives Garner, Crisp, Lenroot, and Sterling. 
The Chairman. The committee will come to order. The stenogra- 
pher will insert in the record at this point Report No. 494 as to alleged 
official misconduct of H. Snowden Marshall; also H. R. 193. 

[House Report No. 494. Sixty-fourth Congress, first session.] 

By direction of the Committee on the Judiciary, I beg leave to make the following 
report, in the nature of a statement, to the House of Representatives. On-the 12tn 
day of January, 1916, Hon. Frank Buchanan, a Representative in Congress from the 
State of Illinois, arose, in his responsible position, on the floor of the House and im- 
peached H. Snowden Marshall, district attorney for the southern district of the State 
of New York, charging the said H. Snowden Marshall with numerous malfeasances 
and misfeasances and with corrupt and improper behavior and conduct in office. 
Immediately after the reading of said charges. Representative Buchanan offered for the 
immediate consideration of the House resolution 90, which provided, among other 
things, ' ' that the Committee on the Judiciary be directed to inquire and report whether 
the action of this House is necessary concerning the alleged official misconduct of 
H. Snowden Marshall," etc. After debate on the resolution, the House, upon motion of 
Mr. Fitzgerald, of New York, referred the resolution to the Committee on the Judiciary 
for its consideration and action. 

The Committee on the Judiciary immediately began the consideration of said reso- 
lution and called Representative Buchanan before it to make such statement and 
furnish such information concerning the truth of his impeachment charges, as set out 
in House resolution 90, as he was able to make and furnish. Thereafter, on the 27th 
day of January, 1916, by direction of the Judiciary Committee, the chairman thereof 
offered in the House of Representatives the following resolution: 

[House resolution 110.] 

"Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary in continuing their consideration of 
House resolution 90 be authorized and empowered to send for persons and papers, 
to subpoena witnesses, to administer oaths to such witnesses, and take their testimony. 

"The said committee is also authorized to appoint a subcommittee to act for and on 
behalf of the whole committee wherever it may be deemed advisable to take testi- 
mony for said committee. In case such subcommittee is appointed, it shall have 
the same powers in respect to obtaining testimony as are herein given to the Committee 
on the Judiciary, with a sergeant at arms, by himself or deputy, who shall attend 
the sittings of such subcommittee and serve the process of same. 

"In case the Committee on the Judiciary or a subcommittee thereof deems it neces- 
sary it may employ such clerks and stenographers as are required to carry out the 
authority given in this resolution, and the expenses so incurred shall be paid out of 
the contingent fund of the House. 

"The Speaker of the House of Representatives shall have authority to sign, and the 
clerk thereof to attest, subpo-nas for witnesses, and the Sergeant at Arms or a deputy 
shall serve them." 

21 



22 H. SNOWDEN MARSHALL. 

The said resolution was on said date unanimously agreed to. 

While further considering the said House resolution 90 and the said House resolu- 
tion 110, on the 31st day of January, 1916, the Committee on the Judiciary authorized 
the chairman to appoint a subcommittee of three to execute the purposes of House 
resolution 110 to act for and on behalf of the full committee wherever it may be deemed 
advisable to take testimony for said committee, and on February 1, 1916, the chair- 
man appointed Messrs. Charles C. Carlin, Warren Gard, and John M. Nelson as mem- 
bers of such subcommittee. 

Thereafter the said subcommittee organized and heard the testimony of certain 
witnesses in the Judiciary Committee rooms in the city of Washington. The sub- 
committee determined, for its further information and in carrying out the duties 
assigned it under the resolution of the House of Representatives, that it should hear 
the testimony of certain other witnesses in the city of New York, and on the 28th day 
of February, 1916, the said subcommittee, under subpoenas duly signed by the Speaker 
of the House of Representatives and attested by the clerk thereof, caused certain 
witnesses to be brought before it, in the Federal post-office building in the city of 
New York, and continued the examination of witnesses upon said charges up to and 
including the 4th day of March, 1916. 

On the 3d day of March, 1916, there appeared in a New York newspaper an article 
containing, among other things, the following language: 

"It is the belief in the district attorney's office that the real aim of the Congress in- 
vestigation is to put a stop to the criminal investigation of the pro-German partisans. " 

On the 3d of March, 1916, the subcommittee called before it one, Leonard R. Holme, 
who testified to the subcommittee that he wrote the article containing the foregoing 
language, but when asked whether or not he conferred with anybody in the district 
attorney's office before the article was written replied that he declined to give the 
source of his information. The chairman of the subcommittee then propounded this 
question to the witness, "Did you confer with Mr. Marshall before you wrote this 
article?" To which the witness replied, "I respectfully decline to answer the ques- 
tion, sir." The chairman of the subcommittee then propuonded the following ques- 
tion to him, "Did you confer with anybody in Mr. Marshall's office?" To which the 
witness replied, "I respectfully decline to answer that question, sir." 

Whereupon, the sergeant at arms was directed by the chairman of the subcommittee 
to take charge of the witness and keep him in custody until the further order of the 
committee. At 4.10 o'clock p. m. of the same day, the chairman of the subcommittee 
again propounded the foregoing questions to Witness Holme, and the following pro- 
ceedings were had: 

"Mr. Carlin. Mr. Holme, the committee has directed me to order you to answer 
question which was asked you. Mr. Stenographer, read the testimony of Mr. Hohne. 

"(The entire previous testimony of Mr. Holme was read to the committee by the 
stenographer in the hearing of the committee only.) 

"Mr. Carlin. Mr. Holme, I hand you tliis article in the sixth column of page 4 of 
the New York Times, dated Friday, March 3, 1916. The article is headed 'Marshall 
refuses Buchanan evidence.' I now call your attention to this paragraph of the 
article : 

"'It is the belief in the district attorney's office that the real aim of the Congress 
investigation is to put a stop to the criminal investigation of the pro-German partisans. ' 

"I ask you from whom you got that information? 

"Mr. Holme. That information, sir, is a deduction. I have known at the time 
these proceedings were begun in Washington, it was before the indictment of Con- 
gressman Buchanan, that there had been a considerable amount of talk around this 
building as to their nature. I am down here practically every day of my life, and I 
meet with a great many men who are connected with the district attorney's office and 
who are in this building in various other regular capacities, and I based that para- 
graph entirely upon my knowledge of the general gossip around the building and the 
general feehng in the building. 

"Mr. Carlin. A\Tiy did you not state that, instead of saving it is the belief in the 
district attorney's office? 

"Mr. Holme. Well, sir, it comes to much the same thing, does it not? The district 
attorney's office is a large organization. 

"Mr. Carlin. Is that your answer? 

"Mr. Holme. Yes, sir. 

"Mr. Carlin. Did you base that part of the article upon a conference held with 
H. Snowden Marshall or any subordinate of his in the district attorney's office? 

"Mr. Holme. I based that article on my general knowledge of the conditions sur- 
rounding this proceeding and the general opinion floating around the building. 



H. SNOWDEjST MARSHALL. 23 

''Mr. Oarlin. You state that it is the general behef in the district attorney's office. 
Now, who in the district attorney's office expressed that belief? 

"Mr. Holme. I don't think I could give you any definite names, because I have 
discussed tliis matter with a large number of different people at various times. 

"Mr. Carlin. As a matter of fact, did anybody in the district attorney's office 
express that belief? 

''Mr. Holme. Yes, sir. 

•'Mr. C.VRLiN. \Mio? 

"Mr. Holme. I can only remember a very few, and I respectfully decline, as a 
newspaper man, to express their opinions, which are often given to me in general 
convex'sation. 

"Mr. Carlin. Was the belief expressed by Mr. Marshall or either of his assistants? 

"Mr. Holme. I respectfully decline to answer, sir. 

■'Mr. Caklin. Mr. Stenographer, insert in the record this article which I hand you, 
and the date line of the paper. 

''Mr. Gard. I understand you to say, Mr. Holme, that this extract wliich has been 
read to you was widtten by you? 

■'Mr. Holme. Yes, sir. 

■'Mr. Gard. And the extract is this: 

•" It is the belief of the district attorney's office that the real aim of the congressional 
investigation is to put a stop to the criminal investigation of the pro-German parti- 
sans.' 

"You wrote that? 

"Mr. Holme. Yes, sir. 

■'Mr. Gard. And I understand also that you decline and refuse to answer questions 
as to whether you obtained that information from anyone in the district attorney's 
office of the southern district of New York? 

"Mr. Holme. Yes, sir. 

■'Mr. Gard. You decline to answer that? 

"Mr. Holme. Yes, sir. 

•'Mr. Carlin. Now, then, Mr. Holme, I am directed by the committee to order you 
to answer that. Do you still decline? 

"Mr. Holme. I do, respectfully, sir. 

"Mr. Carlin. Then, I am directed to say to you, for the record, that this committee 
determines you to be in contempt of the order of the committee and of the House of 
Representatives of the Congress of the United States, and that for the present you will 
be released from the custody of the marshal until the committee, if it sees proper, shall 
proceed in the manner prescribed by statute in such cases. We want to be kind to you. 
We have no desire to be harsh with you. We realize to some extent yom- embarrass- 
ment. We have a duty to discharge, and we think under the circumstances we will 
discharge it in this way and release you from the custody of the Sergeant at Arms of the 
House." 

On Saturday, the 4th day of March, 1916, the said H. Snowden Marshall, as district 
attorney for the southern district of New York, caused to be transmitted to C. C. 
Carlin, chairman of said subcommittee, then in the performance of its duties, as 
required by the House of Representatives, the following letter: 

Department of Justice, 
United States Attorney's Office, 

New York, March 4, 1916. 

Sir: Yesterday afternoon, as I am informed, your honorable committee ordered the 
arrest of Mr. L. R. Holme, a representative of a newspaper which had published an 
article at which you took offense. The unfortunate gentleman of the press was placed 
in custody under your orders. He was taken to the United States marshal to be placed 
in confinement (I do not understand whether his sentence was to be one day or a dozen 
years). The marshal very properly declined to receive the prisoner. This left you 
at a loss, and I am advised that you tried to work your way out of the awkward situation 
by having Mr. Holme brought back and telling him that you were disposed to be 
"kind " to him and then discharged him for the purpose of avoiding unpleasant conse- 
quences to yourselves. 

You are exploiting charges against me of oppressive conduct toward a member of 
your honorable body who is charged with a Adolation of law and of oppressive conduct 
on my part toward shysters in the blackmailing and bankruptcy business. 

I may be able to lighten your labors by offering to resign if you can indicate anything 
I ever did that remotely approximates the lawless tyranny of your order of arrest of 
Mr. Holme. 



24 H. SNOWDEN MARSHALL. 

The supposed justification of your order that Mr. Holme be placed in custody was 
his refusal to answer the question you asked as to where he got the information on 
which was based the article which displeased you. 

It is not necessary for you to place anyone under arrest in order to get the answers 
to the question which you asked Mr. Holme, because I can and will answer it. I 
gave Mr. Holme information, part of which he published and from which he made 
deductions, so that if your honorable committee has a grievance it is against me and 
not against him. 

What I told him was about as follows: 

I said that your expedition to this town was not an investigation conducted in good 
faith, but was a deliberate effort to intimidate any district attorney who had the 
temerity to present charges against one of your honorable body. 

I said that your whole proceeding here was irregular and extraordinary; that I 
had never heard of such conduct of an impeachment proceeding; that charges of this 
sort were not usually heard in public until the House of Representatives had con- 
sidered them and were willing to stand back of them. 

I pointed out to him that you, contrary to usual practice, had come here and had 
held public hearings; that among your witnesses you had invited every rogue that 
you could lay your hands on to come before you and blackguard and slander me and 
my assistant under the full privilege of testifying before a congressional committee. 

I told him that you had called one of my junior assistants before you and had 
attempted to make it publicly appear that his refusal to answer your questions as to 
what occurred in the grand jury room in the Buchanan case was due solely to my 
orders. I said that at the time you attempted to convey this public impression you 
knew that it was misleading because I had been asked by you to produce the minutes 
of the grand jury and had been instructed by the Attorney General not to comply 
with your request, as you well knew. I showed him the telegram of the Attorney 
General to me and showed him a copy of my letter to you, dated February 29, 1916, 
in which I sent you a copy of the telegram of the Attorney General instructing me 
not to give you the grand jury minutes. 

I told him that yo^u were traveling around in your alleged investigation of me with 
Buchanan's counsel, Walsh and David Slade, in constant conference with you. I 
said that I believed that every word of the evidence, whether in so-called secret 
sessions or not, had been placed at the disjjosal of these worthies, and that I would be 
just as willing to give the grand jury minutes to a defendant as to give them to your 
honorable subcommittee. 

I told him that I did not share the views which seemed to prevail in youi* subcom- 
mittee on this subject. I said that I regarded a Member of Congress who would take 
money for an unlawful purpose fron^ any foreign agent as a traitor, and that it was a 
great pity that such a person could only be indicted under the Sherman law, which 
carries only one year in jail as punishment. 

I said that it was incomprehensible to me how your honorable subcommittee should 
rush to the assistance of an indicted defendant; how you had apparently resolved to 
prevent prosecution by causing the district attorney in charge to be publicly slandered. 

I told him that I would not permit the prosecution of the persons whose cause you 
had appai'ently espoused to be impeded by youi I said that if you wanted the minutes 
of the grand jury in any case, you would not get them as long as I remained in office. 

You will observe from the foregoing statement that what Mr. Holme published may 
have been ))ased on what I said. If you have any quarrel, it is with me, and not with 
him. 

It is amazing to me to think that you supposed that I did not understand what you 
have been attempting to do during your visit here. I realized that your effort was to 
ruin me and my office by publisliing with your full approval the complaints of various 
persons who have run afoul of the criminal law under my administration. Your 
subcommittee has endeavored by insulting questions to my assistants and others, by 
giving publicity and countenance to the charges of rascals and by refusing to listen 
to the truth and refusing to examine public records to which your attention was 
directed, to publicly disgrace me and my office. 

I propose to make this letter public. 
Respectfully, 

H. Snowuen Marshall, 

United States Attorney. 

Hon. C. C. Oarlin, 

Chairman Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee 

of the House of Representatives, 

323 Federal Building, New York, N. Y. 



H. SNOWDEX MAESHALL. 25 

At the same time or before this letter was sent to the siil)committee, it was given 
to the newspapers and published by them. 

On the 9th day of March, 1916, the subcommittee aforesaid, through its chairman, 
Hon. C. 0. Carlin, submitted to the Committee on the Judiciary the foregoing letter 
of H. Snowden Marshall. 

On or about the lltli day of March, 1916, the following letter was receiA^ed by the 
chairman of the Judiciary Committee and immediately laid before the full committee: 

Department of Justice, 
United States Attorney's Office, 

Next) York, March 10, 1916. 
Dear Sir: Referring to my letter of March 4, addressed to the chairman of the sub- 
committee which has recently taken testimony in New York concerning my adminis- 
tration of my office, I notice from the press that some persons appear to have construed 
my statements as directed toward your honorable committee as a whole. I beg to 
advise you that the criticisms in that letter were addressed to the methods pursued 
by the subcommittee. I do not retract nor modify any of those criticisms. But I did 
not intend (nor do I think my letter should be so construed) to reflect in any way upon 
the Judiciary Committee, nor did I question the power of the House of Representatives 
to order such an investigation. 

If you and the other members of your committee, for whom I have high respect, 
have gained the impression that my letter carried any personal reflection upon your 
honorable committee, it gives me pleasure to assure you that I had no such purpose. 
Respectfully, 

H. Snowden Marshall. 
Hon. Edwin Y. Webb, 

Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 

The Judiciary Committee has carefully considered said letters in the light of con- 
gressional and judicial precedents as touching the prerogatives of the House of Repre- 
sentatives and its Members, and the committee has come to the determination that 
said letters, their publication and attendant circumstances, are of such nature, that 
they should be called to the attention of the House. For obvious reasons the com- 
mittee deems it advisable to take this step rather than to report directly upon the 
facts and the law in the case. I am, therefore, directed by the committee to report 
the whole matter to the House of Representatives, with the recommendation that a, 
select committee of five be appointed by the Speaker to report upon the facts in this 
case; the violations, if any, of the privileges of the House or the Committee on the 
Judiciary or the subcommittee thereof ; the power of the House to punish for contempt ; 
and the procedm-e in contempt proceedings, to the end that the jjrivileges of the House 
shall be maintained and the rights of the Members protected in the performance of 
their official duties. 



[H. Res. 193. Sixty-fourth Congress, first session.] 

Resolved, That a select committee of five members be appointed forthwith by the 
Speaker to consider the report, in the nature of a statement, from the Judiciary Com - 
mittee with reference to certain conduct of H. Snowden Marshall, and to report to 
the House of Representatives the facts in the case; the violations, if any, of the 
privileges of the House of Representatives or of the Committee on the Judiciary, or 
of the subcomirdttee thereof; the power of the House to punish for contempt; and the 
procedm-e in contempt proceedings, in case they find a contempt has been com- 
mitted, to the end that the privileges of the House shall be maintained and the rights 
of Members protected in the performance of their official duties. 

The select committee shall have the power to send for persons and papers and shall 
submit its report to the House not later than April fourteenth, nineteen hundred and 
sixteen. 

What is the pleasure of the committee 1 What will you have done 
first, gentlemen ? 

Mr. Crisp. There are gentlemen present here from the Judiciary- 
Committee, and I presume they desire to present some of their views 
to the committee. I think it would be the proper thing to hear from 
them first. 

The Chairman. We will hear from the chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee, Mr. Webb. 



26 H. SNOWDEN MAESHALL. 

STATEMENT OF HON. EDWIN Y. WEBB, A REPRESENTATIVE 
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA. 

Mr. Webb. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, there 
are a good many angles involved in this matter, but only one or two 
about which there might be any controversy at all. 

As I understand it, the resolution has directed you gentlemen to 
investigate and report the facts, which happily are almost entirely 
of record, composed of the two letters which I sent out in the report, 
written by Mr. Marshall to the chairman of the subcommittee. I 
therefore take it that it will be easy to report on that under the 
direction contained in the resolution. 

The Chairman . Have you those letters ? 

Mr. Webb. They are copied in the report. The other angle is to 
say whether or not the letters are in contempt of the House, and if 
so, what proceeding should be had, and the power of the House to 
punish for contempt. 

On the question of whether or not the letters are contemptuous, I 
do not think there is any controversy as to that, when you take into 
consideration the surroundings at the time the letters were written. 
As you gentlemen know, Mr. Buchanan on the 14th day of January 
arose in his responsible place in the House and impeached Mr. H. 
Snowden Marshall for high crimes and misdemenors and set out some 
35 or 40 specific charges. Those charges, upon the motion of Mr. 
Fitzgerald, were referred to the Judiciary Committee for examina- 
tion and report. 

Shortly thereafter, having previously examined Mr. Buchanan and 
other witnesses, the Judiciary Committee directed the chairman to 
ask the House for power to subpoena witnesses, swear them, etc., and 
to make a further investigation of the charges in this resolution. In 
consequence thereof, H. R. 110 was unanimously passed by the House 
which gave the Judiciary Committee or any subcommittee thereof 
the power to further investigate the charges as set out in this resolu- 
tion, and gave them power to subpoena witnesses and swear them and 
take testimony, either here in Washington or at any other place that 
the Judiciary Committee might deem proper to have the evidence 
taken — the regular power given committees in all impeachment mat- 
ters, I may say. 

The Judiciar}^ Committee immediately thereafter authorized the 
chairman of the Judiciary Committee to appoint a subcommittee of 
three to take this testimony, which was doiie, I think, on or about 
the 27th of February. That committee consisted of Mr. Carhn, Mr. 
Gard, and Mr. Nelson. Immediately thereafter they began their 
duties as directed by the House. They sat for a week or 10 days 
here in Washington and subpoBnaed a number of witnesses, Judge 
Maher, United States judge from the southern district of New York, 
was one of the witnesses, and a number of other men of distinction 
were brought before the subcommittee and examined. 

There were numerous witnesses whose names were furnished to 
the subcommittee who lived in New York, and the subcommittee 
thought, as a matter of economy and expedition, that it would be 
better to go to New York, nearer to the witnesses, in order to hasten 



H. SNOWDEN MAKSHALL. 27 

the hearing. Consequently they determmed to go to New York, and 
did go there on the 28th day of February, and opened their hearings 
in the Federal post-office building in New York City, and, after 
having sat for five or six days — Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, 
Thursday, P^riday, and Saturd^-y morning — investigating these 
charges made against Mr. Marshall, subpoenaing, of course, such 
witnesses as furnished them by the man accused^ Mr. Buchanan. 

Necessarily, I can say rather parenthetically here, all these inves- 
tigations in impeachment charges are in the nature of inquisitorial 
proceedings; they must be in the nature of the case; it is an ex 
parte hearing, and may some time seem to the public generally to 
be a little harsh, but it is the only remedy the people have, the only 
method they have of getting rid of an unworthy oflftcer, or of an 
officer who has been impeached by a Member of Congress in his 
responsible position. 

These gentlemen had sat there all the week and the testimony is 
printed, and if you gentlemen want to go through it, it is at your 
disposal. On Monday morning there appeared in a newspaper in 
New York — m the New York Times — an article which, among other 
things, had this language in it: 

It is the belief in the district-attorney's office that the real aim of the congressional 
investigation is to put a stop to the criminal investigation of the pro-German partisans, 

Mr. Sterling. Is the substance of that article the same as this 
first letter that Marshall wrote to the committee ? He states in 
that letter that what he claims to have stated to the newspaper man 
is an article along the same line of his letter ? 

Mr. Webb. Yes, sir; the general deductions and reference to circu- 
lating the grand jury minutes for the subcommittee to see if any testi- 
mony was given before the grand jury. As you understand, one of 
the charges in the impeachment articles was that Mi-. Marshall had 
corruptly procured from the grand jury in New York indictments 
against reputable citizens upon no testimony, mthout having any 
testimou}^, or sufficient testimony. 

Mr. Sterling. Do Mr. Buchanan's charges that he made on the 
floor of the House along that line refer to the Buchanan and Fowler, 
cases particularly, or do they claim there were other cases ? 

Mr. Webb. They claimed there were other cases. 

Ml'. Sterling. And they did not intend to cover the Buchanan and 
Fowler cases at all ? 

Mr. Webb. They did intend to cover the Buchanan and Fowler 
cases. 

Mr. Sterling. In the charges ? 

^Ir. Webb. Yes, sir; Mr. Buchanan came before the committee 
and stated that was one of them, and he covered them generally 
because he said there were others. I believe some indictments grew 
out of what was known as the Rae Tanzer case, where other indict- 
ments were found without any evidence, or without sufficient evidence. 

That article appeared in the New York newspaper, and that article, 
a section of which I will read, of course appeared to the subcommittee 
to be unfair and unjust and untrue, and immediately they began to 
inquire who the author of the article was, and they discovered it 
was a young man by the name of Holme, I believe, and he, being in 
the committee room, they called him on the witness stand and asked 



28 H. SNOWDEN MAKSHALL. 

him about this article, and they asked him who in the district attor- 
ney's office gave him the information. He dechned to answer the 
question. They asked him if he got the information in the district 
attorney's office. He said, "Yes; that was the general report around 
the office." After a long series of questions, which are set out in the 
report, and he still declining to answer the question, the committee 
told him they would hold him in the custody of the Sergeant at Arms 
until further orders. At 4 o'clock and 10 minutes that afternoon 
they called him back on the stand and reasked him the same questions, 
and he still declined to answer them, declined to say whether Mr. 
Marshall was the author of this charge, or who it was, and thereupon 
the committee admonished him and told him they wanted to be kind 
to him and not harsh and would turn him loose, discharge him until 
some further steps might be taken under the laws of the United States. 
You gentlemen know that the Constitution pro \ddes that where a wit- 
ness refuses to answer a question before a congressional investigating 
committee, he is guilty of contempt and can be indicted by being re- 
ported to the district attorney's office in the District of Columbia by 
the Speaker of the House or by the Vice President of the Senate. 

This occurred on Friday afternoon. On Saturday morning this 
subcommittee continued its investigation by examining some other 
witnesses. Upon Saturday afternoon, about 6 o'clock, I am inforned, 
the fu'st letter of date March 4 was written to Mr. Carlin. 

Mr. Carlin. About 3 o'clock. 

Mr. Webb. And I am informed by Mr. Carlin that he knew nothing 
about the letter until the newspapers in New York called him up to 
know about it. In other words, the letter had been given to the 
public press in New York before it was even received by the sub- 
committee of the Judiciary Committee. 

The letter speaks for itself, gentlemen. In my opinion, it is 
unjust, it is slanderous, it is contemptuous. 

Mr. Moon. You are speaking of the letter of March 4 ( 

Mr. Webb, The letter of March 4 that Mr. Marshall wrote the 
subcommittee. 

Mr. Moon. That you presented to the House ? 

Mr. Webb. Yes. The letter is undoubtedly contemptuous, and 
was written and published for the purpose of expressing the con- 
tempt of the writer. Every line of it is contemptuous in the most 
unfair kind of language, and the fact that Mr. Marshall, at the con- 
clusion of the letter, says, "I propose to make this letter public," 
and before ever letting the chairman of the committee look over it 
and see it, it was put in the hands of the newspapers and published 
all over New York for the purpose of bringing disgrace and contumely 
and shame on a committee sent to New York by the House of Rep- 
resentatives in the pursuance of one of its constitutional functions, 
to wit, the most powerful constitutional function probably the Con- 
gress has — that is, the power of impeachment. The Constitution 
says distinctly it is one of the few distinct things provided in the 
Constitution — that is, that the House shall be the sole originators 
and triers of impeachment cases. 

Mr. Lenroot. May I ask you there — we are directed here to find 
whether a contempt has been committed. I should like to know 



H. SNOWDEN MAKSHALL, 29 

your views as to whether or not in making that finding we are re- 
quired to pass upon what, if an}^, basis of truth there may be in the 
charges made in this letter ? 

Mr. Webb. Answering you, Mr. Lenroot, it makes no difference to 
the committee 

Mr. Lenkoot (interposing). I merely wished to get your vit-w as 
to the law. 

Mr. Webb. I do not thmk it is necessary to find a basis for it, but 
I should like you to read over the testimony and find there is no basis 
for it, if you will. 

Mr. Gardner. Was that testimony taken in New York by the 
subcommittee ? 

Mr. Webb. Yes; and we shall be glad to furnish this committee 
with a copy of the letter. I have read every line of it, and I want to 
say that I have been in these inquisitions before, and I have realized 
myself in questioning witnesses that we have gone a little far. We 
have not been compelled, there is no law which compels an investi- 
gating committee oi this sort to observe the rules laid down 

Mr. Gardner (interposing). May I ask a question m connection 
with the one Mr. Lenroot propounded a moment ago? 

Mr. Webb. Yes, sir; I hope you gentlemen will ask questions. 

Mr. Gardner. Let us suppose, for the sake of the argument, that 
the statements made in the letter by Mr. Marshall are true; that the 
subcommittee had done all the things that he intimated they did in 
his letter. Being an officer of the Government and holding a high 
position, would he be justified in writing that kind of a letter, admit- 
tmg the facts stated therein to be true ? 

j\ir. Webb. I do not think he would, Mr. Gardner, even if every- 
tliing he said was true, because the manner in which he writes it, the 
manner in which he made it public, the contemptuous expressions 
all through show that even though what he states is true, he pur- 
posely and deliberately planned to make his letter full of contempt 
for the purpose of reflecting upon these gentlemen, bringing disgrace 
upon them, and if possible driving them out of New York. 

!Mr. Moon. Will you file with the committee, to be printed with 
this report, the testimony to which you refer ? 

Mr. Webb. I will, Mr. Moon; yes, sir. 

Mr. Marshall starts out by saying: 

You are exploiting charges against me of oppressive conduct toward a Member of 
your honoral)le body who is charged with a violation of law, and of oppressive con- 
duct on my part toward shysters in the blackmailing and bankruptcy business. 

Then he takes up this man Holme's trouble. He is the man who 
becomes offended because Holme was required or asked to tell if he 
got his information from the district attorney, and the district attor- 
ney behind Holme, it seems, was trying to reflect upon the subcom- 
mittee, and when the subcommittee questioned him to find out where 
he was getting his evidence and the newspaper reporter declined to 
answer, then Mi*. Marshall runs to his rescue with this contemptuous 
letter. He said: 

I may be able to lighten your labors by offering to resign if you can indicate any- 
thing I ever did that remotely approximates the lawless tyranny of your order of 
arrest of Mr. Holme. 



30 H. SNOWDEN MARSHALL. 

"Lawless tyranny;" there is a man who had pubHshed in the news- 
paper, issued right over the office where these three gentlemen rep- 
resenting the dignity of the House of Representatives were sitting, 
a charge of slander against them. It was slander. 

Mr. Lenroot. Let me ask you right there, is it your view of the law 
that this subcommittee did have a right to arrest Mr. Holme ? 

Mr. Webb. It had the right to detain him in custody, for the pres- 
ent, at least. 

Mr. Lenroot. I just wanted to know your view about that. 

Mr, Sterling. On that point, Mr. Webb, of course, I have not 
any doubt but what a committee has the right to detain him in cus- 
tody; then, I suppose, they should report it to the House, and the 
House would determine the question as to whether or not the deten- 
tion should be continued. 

Mr. Webb. I think you are right there, sir. 

Mr. Sterling. But at the time Holme refused to answer these 
questions you were not investigating the charges which Buchanan 
had made in the House ? 

Mr. Webb. That is true, sir. 

Mr. Sterling. You think you did have a right into that question 
and compel witnesses to answer, it being a collateral matter and not 
of the substance of the investigation ? 

Mr. Webb. I will say to you. Judge Sterhng, that question has 
never been decided in the history of this Government. The question 
never arose before (that particular collateral question), because no 
committee of the House of Representatives investigating impeach- 
ment charges under the highest constitutional prerogative, so far as I 
know, has ever been assaulted in a manner like this, or ever had occa- 
sion to call a man up before them and try to determine from whom he 
got the insulting information, and especially when the paper stated 
that it came from the very man whom the subcommittee was in- 
vestigating. 

Mr. Lenroot. Has it been decided that the subcommittee of the 
House has a right to detain a witness in custody ? 

Ml*. Webb. No, sir; not that I know of. 

Mr. Crisp. In the Kilbourn case, did not the Supreme Court hold 
that either branch of Congress could deal with a contumacious witness, 
provided they were authorized to legislate or deal with the matter on 
which he dechned to answer ? 

Mr. Webb. That was the point on which the Kilbourn case was de- 
cided by Justice Miller. They held, and held only, that in that par- 
ticular case that the House of Representatives had no authority to 
appoint a committee to investigate the private matters of a concern, 
to wit, whether a man held stock in what is known as a real estate 
pool in the District of Columbia, and consequently his refusal to answer 
a question and produce books, he was thereafter found in contempt of 
the House, and incarcerated by the sergeant at arms, was unlawful, 
the whole business void, and therefore the sergeant at arms hable, 
but in that very case, they do not say that the House of Representa- 
tives has not the inherent power to punish contempt, and especially, 
as Judge Miller sets out, that whereas his argument may throw some 
doubt upon the general power of the House to punish for contempt 
with ordinary representative committees, yet there are certain ques- 



H. SNOWDEN MARSHALL. 31 

tioiis which they, under the Constitution, specifically are given power 
to investigate, to wit, election contests. They can punish a Member 
for improi)er conduct, and can originate and try impeachment cases. 

Mr. Sterling. There are several cases where punishment by the 
House has been sustained ? 

Mr. Webb. Yes, sir; I will cite them. 

Mr. Sterling. As to contumacious witnesses, I think in the Kil- 
bourn case, if I remember, the court discharged him because they 
were trying to investigate a matter over which they did not have 
jurisdiction ^ 

Mr. Webb. That is right. 

^Ir. Sterling. Tlie question arose in my mind as to whether or not 
this committee, when it had Holme in its investigation, that the 
article then appeared in the paper after the committee had been ap- 
pointed was not covered by the committee's commission to inves- 
tigate. 

Mr. Webb. That is true. That is why I say it is a novel point. 

Mr. Crisp. That is why I called attention to the Kilbourn case. 

Mr. Gardner. Judge Sterling, admitting the fact that the subcom- 
mittee did not have the right to investigate Mr. Holme or commit 
him, as it were, would that justify the district attorney in writing the 
character of letter that he did to the subcommittee ? 

Mr. Sterling. I will tell you how I feel about that personally. 
Of course, a man may commit a libel by telling the truth so far as 
that is concerned, but there is not any use to present a matter to this 
House; there is no contempt where the libel is the truth. The House 
would not stand that for a minute. 

Mr. Webb. No; I would not have you do that. 

Mr. Sterling. The House would not stand for it, and I think we 
ought to proceed so we are sure of our ground. 

Mr. Webb. But, gentlemen, leaving out the Holme matter en- 
tirely, except as a starting point for Mr. Marshall; leaving out the 
c[uestion of whether or not they had the right to hold him in cus- 
tody — and by the way, I want to say that the subcommittee never 
ordered him into the custody of the United States marshal at all; it 
ordered him to be held by Mr. Gordon, the Sergeant at Arms of the 
House for a few hours, and later called him on the stand, and then 
dismissed him. He was in the custody of Mr. Gordon, and they 
walked around the building together; stayed together, very pleas- 
antly associated together. 

He goes on, though, and practically takes up the burden of making 
this charge against the House of Representatives that this man Hohne 
made in the paper. Now I will leave out Hohne entirely. 

He says: 

I may be able to lighten your labors by offering to resign if you can indicate any- 
thing I ever did that remotely approximates the lawless tyranny of your order of 
arrest of Mr. Holme. 

The supposed justification of your order that Mr. Holme be placed in custody 
was his refusal to answer the question you asked as to where he got the information 
on which was based the article which displeased you. 

Now, mark you, that article was in the New York Times saying that 
this whole congressional investigation — saying that it was the belief 
of the district attorney's office that the real aim of the congressional 



32 H. SNOWDEN MARSHALL. 

investigation was to put a stop to the criminal investigation of the 
pro-German partisans. 

That was not a reflection upon that subcommittee; and if it were, 
would be a reflection upon the House of Representatives, because, 
constructively, when the House of Representatives appointed this 
committee, the power of the House and the dignity of the House itself 
went to New York. Manifestly, the House can not sit down and hear 
three or four weeks of testimony in investigating preliminary impeach- 
ment charges, and therefore they assign that power to some respon- 
sible subcommittee; and when this committee went to New York it 
had thrown around it the power and protection of the House of Rep- 
resentatives, as lodged in the House of Representatives by the Con- 
stitution of the United States. 

Mr. Moon. The resolution of the House authorizes the Judiciary 
Committee to appoint this subcommittee. 

Mr. Webb. Yes, sir; that is set out in H. R. 110, embodied in the 
report, Mr. Chairman. 

There was a direct and awful reflection upon the House of Repre- 
sentatives, and a reflection which is not true, which every man in the 
House and on the floor of the House knows is not true. It was made 
for the purpose of bringing disgrace upon that body, upon the House 
of Representatives, and upon the subcommittee that dared investigate 
the charges presented by a Member of the House. 

Now, Mr. Marshall says, further: 

It is not necessary for you to place anyone under arrest in order to get the answers 
to the question which you asked Mr. Holme, because I can and will answer it.i? I 
gave Mr. Holme information, part of which he published and from which he made 
deductions, so that if your honorable committee has a grievance it is against me and 
not against him. 

That is the man whose conduct the Congress of the United States 
has solemnly instructed its subcommittee to investigate. 

What I told him was about as follows: 

I said that your expedition to this town was not an investigation conducted in 
good faith. 

That was contemptuous. 

Your expedition to this town was not an investigation conducted in good faith — 

That was a direct charge of bad faith on the part of Congress and 
of the subcommittee — 

but was a deliberate effort to intimidate any district attorney who had the temerity 
to present charges against one of your honorable body. 

One of the body of the House of Representatives. 

Gentlemen, that language alone was as contemptuous as a man 
could possibly write, and especially under the circumstances, and with 
the determination and announced statement in his letter that he 
proposed to make such contemptuous language public and says this: 

I pointed out to him that you, contrary to usual practice, had come here and had 
held public hearings — 

So far as I know in every investigation for the last 10 or 12 years, 
all hearings have been held publicly. In the beginning of this inves- 
tigation had in the Judiciary Committee room, tlie first witnesses 
were examined in secret session, and I may say to you gentlemen here 
it was done })ecause we thought there were some witnesses whose 



H. SNOWDEX MARSHALL. 33 

testiiiioiiy iiiighl luu hv wortliy of credence which the committee 
ought to give an hoi-orable wit'iess, and that testimony was held 
behind closed doors, and for the sake of H. Snowden Marshall was 
never made public, and never has been made public. There was the 
subcommittee and the Judiciary Committee and the House trying to 
protect him against witnesses that the committee itself did not have 
entire confiden.ce in, and he rushes into open print and slanders the 
committee that has theretofore been trying to protect him. I say 
that all these investigations heretofore have been held in public, so 
in the Duane case in Florida, so in the Archibald case, so in the Han- 
ford case, so in the wSwan case. 

Mr. Sterling. Did we not have any secret hearings in the Archi- 
bald ease at all ^ 

Mr. Webb. I do not believe we did. 

Mr. vSterling. I do not believe we did after we began takuig testi- 
mony. 

Mr. Webb. We had an executive session around the table and read 
documentary evidence, but all of the hearings were public. 

Mr. Lenroot. The subconamittee held hearings outside of Washing- 
ton in the Swan case ? 

Mr. Webb. Yes; and in other oases. 

Mr. Gardner. You say these hearings behind closed doors were for 
the pi otection of Mr. Marshall ? 

Mr. Webb. Absolutely. 

Mr. Gardner. Upon the idea that witnesses might make" state- 
ments concerning his official conduct that would reflect upon him 
unjustly 1 

Mr. Webb. I tliink I can say that absolutely for the subcommittee. 
They were aware that among these 50 or 60 witnesses whose names 
had been given them, we got the idea that a few of them were not 
entirely responsible, or that their characters might be impeached, 
whose character had been impeached by members of the Judiciary 
Committee sittuig around the executive board, and for the purpose of 
not paralyzing the arm of the district attorney's office in New York 
by testimony which might be regarded as tainted with improper 
character, some of these witnesses were examined behind closed doors. 

May I say that for the subcommittee ? If I am in error I want to 
be corrected. 

(Messrs. Nelson and Gard signified their assent.) 

He charges the subcommittee of the House of Representatives 
with bad faith, and then goes on to say: 

I pointed out to him that yoii, contrary to usual jiractice, had come here and had 
held public hearin^js; that among your witnesses you had invited every rogue that you 
could lay your hands on to ( ome before you and blackguard and slander me and my 
assistants under the full privilege of testifying before a congressional committee. 

Having read the testimony, every word of it, as taken by the official 
stenographer in New York, I deny that charge against the sub- 
committee. It is not true. It is not true that these gentlemen 
invited anybody. Mr. Buchanan, on the floor of the House, stated 
to the House that he was a poor man and could make these charges 
against Mr. Marsliali good if he had tlie power to get witnesses present, 
and it has been the custom- during all the years of you gentlemen's 
long and honorable carrier that whenever a Member of Congress im- 

37214— H. Kept. 544, 64-1 3 



34 H. SNOWDEN MARSHALL. 

peaches any civil officer of the United States that he furnishes the 
names of the witnesses and the House subpoenas them. This sub- 
committee simply went up there in obedience'! to the desire of the 
House tt) investigate the charges set out by this man Buchanan and 
for him to furnish the witnesses to be examined. I beheve I have 
stated that this subcommittee of its own initiative has not sub- 
poenaed an} \ntnoss ? 

Mr. Nelson. Do you wish an answer^ 

Mr. Webb. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Nelson. We have not; no witness not suggested by Mr. 
Buchanan or who requested to be heard, for instance, Mr. Wise. 

Mr. Webb. I think that shoukl be known to the gentlemen of 
this special committee. They did not go around hunting up testi- 
mony, as they had a right to. If they had wanted to, they could 
have put men to work and hunted up testimoiiy agamst this man 
Marshall. But no ; they had contented themselves to subpoena and 
examine witnesses submitted to them by Congressman Buchanan ~ 
excepting in one case there was testimony before the subcommittee in 
New York about a certain matter, and Hon. Henry A. Wise- 

Ml. Nelson. Let me qualify that in this much, that when some 
evidence was given on some certain charge, where the witness 
mentioned some particular name, and the chairman wished to 
corroborate that, he would send for that person mentioned in the 
testimony. 

Mr. Webb. Yes, sir; that is all right. This committee was sitting 
there and taking testimony and Mr. Henry A. Wise, the predecessor 
of Mr. H. Snowden Marshall, a very distinguished lawyer in New 
York City, as you all know, volunteered to take the stand in behalf of 
Ml*. Marshall, you might say. If you read liis testimony you will find 
it is a most magnificent encomium on Mr. Marshall and Mr. Marshall's 
administration up there,, explaining the grand jury, the use of the 
grand jury, and the ease indictments might be found, etc., and the 
committee heard him voluntarily on behalf of Mr. Marshall, and 
refused to hear nobody that asked to be heard. He says: 

You invited every rogue that you could lay your hands on to come before you and 
blackguard me. 

The subcommittee has informed me that they do not know of a 
single man that was examined by this subcommittee who has ever 
been convicted of roguery or of larceny. 

I will tell you what they did do, gentlemen. In the Rae Tanzer 
case, and in that case without discussing the merit of it, I might say 
that Hon. Martin Milton, at one time a vei-y distinguished Member 
of this House, known as a great lawyer, stated ])efore the subcommit- 
tee here in Washington about 10 days ago that when Mr. Marshall 
took jurisdiction of the Rae Tanzer case he wrenched the Federal 
jurisdiction. Mr. Ripton, a witness, Judge Maher, Hon. J. B. Stanch- 
field were witnesses — some of the highest class men in the United 
States — and many of them testified gladly to the good character and 
the high stanchng of Hon. II. Snowden Marsliall. 

Mr. Sterling. Were any of the witnesses persons whom Marshall 
had prosecuted '( 

Mr. Webb. Yes, sir; necessarily so. There was a man by the name 
of Crocker, I believe, a lawyer. 



H. SNOWDEN MAESHAT.L. 35 

Mr. Gard. Several of them were. 

Mr. Webb. Yes. 

Mr. Gard. That was the Opponheimer case. 

Mr. Webb. It was stated that after indictments had been quashed 
that the district attorney would go up to the grand jury and get 
another indictment: sometimes got six or seven, but they had to be 
investigated. It was charged that he showed that mahcious and per- 
sistent feeUng toward these men not consistent with a good officer. 
They did have to examine him, of course. But the subcommittee 
knew he had been indicted and what he was indicted for, and the 
members of the subcommittee were big enough and broad enough to 
take into consideration the circumstances and were able to weigh the 
testimony. 

I was going to tell you what was done in the Rae Tanzer case. A 
man by the name of Stafford, who was indicted for perjury 

Ml". Sterling. \^Tiat is that case you were speaking of? 

Mr. Webb. I think I will explain it briefly. There was a little 
woman by the name of Rae Tanzer who was taken to a town in New 
Jei^sey and there she was 

Mr. Sterlixct (interposing) . Under the Mann Act ? 

Mr. Webb. Xot under the Mann Act, but a gentleman, who said 
his name was Oliver Osborn, spent a night with her and abused her. 
Later on she wrote letters and she finally got no word from hmi, and 
she located James W. Osborn and charged him with being Oliver 
Osborn, and she went then to consult four or five law fu'm's, and 
could not get anybody to represent her, and finally got vSlade & Slade 
to represent her, and Slade & Slade brought a civil suit in the civil 
court of New York for breach of promise, seduction, etc., and while 
that civil suit was pending in the United States court, under Mr. 
^larshall's jurisdiction and with Mr. Marshall's consent and helping 
to arrange it, Hon. James W. Osborn, being then in the employ, I 
believe, of the United States Government in prosecuting the New 
Haven Railroad cases, they issued a warrant for the Slades and for 
Rae Tanzer and for Rae Tanzer's two sisters, and some other wit- 
nesses, I believe. 

Mr. Nelsox. Mr. Stafford ? 

Mr. AYebb. Mr. Stafford, who was clerk of the hotel, who identified 
James W. Osborn as being the man who spent the night there. 

Mr. Nelson. And the private detective? 

Mr. Webb. Yes. They indicted Slade for conspiracy to obstruct 
justice in a United States court. 

Mr. Gard. It is fair to say that the matter arose in this way: Rae 
Tanzer, the complaining person in the civil case, was arraigned before 
Commissioner Holton, United States commissioner, on the specific 
charge that she had written a letter to James W. Osborn, which they 
charged was an abuse of the mails, and an attempt to use the mails 
for the purpose of obtaining mone}'^ under blackmail and unlawfully 
defraud. The letter hardly bears such an interpretation, but that 
was the start of the prosecution. 

Mr. Webb. That was the hook upon whicli they hung the juris- 
diction of the United States. 

Mr. Gard. Yes; that was what they hung the jurisdiction of the 
United States court on. Then all other indictments were returned for 
conspiracy and perjury and things like that: they put ever3'thing in, 



56 H. SNOWDEN MARSHALL. 

and everybod;,' in, the lawyers and her sisters, and everybody else; 
they indicted them for conspiracy and some for perjury, but that was 
the original jurisdiction and the writing of the letter. 

Mr. Webb. And during all these indictments, cross indictments, 
and conspiracy charges lying up there in New York from the United 
States district attorney's office they indicled the man by the name of 
Stafford for perjury, and they convicted him. 

Now that man Stafford v/as subpoenaed hero as a witness. His 
name was given to the committee by Mr. Buchanan, and although he 
had been indicted, there was no reason why ho should not testify. 
But he came down and the committee would not hear him; they said, 
''We will not swear you; you have been convicted of perjury; you 
can send a statement or an affidavit down here if you want to." 
That is how that subcommittee was- protecting Mr. H. Snowden 
Marshall. 

Mr. Gard. That was even after this letter was n'ceived. 

Ml'. Webb. Yes. 

Mr. Nelson. On that point let mo tell you also for the record that 
another gentleman came to the committee and asked to be heard 
and said he had a very severe case of oppression on the part of Mr. 
Marshall. He was asked if he had been convicted. He admitted 
he had, and the chairman informed him that we conld not hear him; 
that he might file his statement in the form of an affidavit, and that 
was done. 

Mr. Webb. So I say his charge against this House and this sub- 
committee that "they have invited every rogue they could lay their 
hands on to come before the subcommittee and blackguard and 
slander me (Marshall)," I say that is untrue. 

A little further on he says: 

I told him that you were traveling around — 
That is another contemptuous remark — 

i told him that you (the subcommittee) were traveling around in your alleged 
investigation of me with Buchanan's counsel, Walsh and David Slade, in constant 
conference with you. I said that I believed that every word of the evidence, whether 
in so-called secret sessions or not, had been placed at the disposal of these worthies, 
and that I would be just as willing to give the grand jury minutes to a defendant as 
to give them to your honorable subcommittee. 

Mr. Moon. How was that, ho would as soon give 

Mr. Webb. Ho would "as soon give the grand jury minutes to a 
defendant as to give them to your honorable subcommittee." 

Mr. Moon. These rogues? 

Mr. Webb, Yes; Buchanan and those others indicted v/ith him. 

Mr. Sterling. He means by that that ho thought the committee 
VN'oiild turn them over anj'hovv' to Buchanan's lawyers^ 

Mr. Moon. Oh, yes; it is to Buchanan's Inwyors inst<»ad of these 
other parties he is spenking of ^ 

^.Ir. Sterling. Yes. To what extent wore Walsh and Slade 
pnsent ? 

Mr. Webb. They were i)resent most of the time when they wanted 
to be, but I will say, gentlemen, there is nothing unusual about that, 
.'0 far as I know. Mr. Marshall could have been present himself. 
These gentlemen, in investigating the Dayton ch rges, there were two 
liiwyers ])ressing the charges against Judge Dayton. 

Mr. Sterling. Did they take part in examining witnesses ? 



H. SNOWDEX MARSHALL. 3T 

" Mr. Webb. They did. They started out with this method (it was 
cumbersome, as you will see), by requiring Mr. Buchanan or Mr. 
Buchanftn's counsel to write out each question they wanted to ask the 
witness. You can see that would have drawn out the examination 
for six or eight months, so finally the members of the committee said, 
"Just go ahead and ask a few direct questions yourselves. We sit 
here, we understand the situation," and that was done in this case. 

I should like j'ou gentlemen to read the testimony and see there was 
nothing — that there were no improper questions asked by this sub- 
( ommittec of these witnesses in New York, and they do not seem to 
me to have allowed anybody to ask impropei questions. 

Mr. Lenroot. I notice in the paragraph preceding that which you 
have just read the charges that this subcommittee attempted to 
secure the minutes of the grand jury. 

Mr. Webb. I can make a statement now on that question. I was 
just taking up what I thought to be contemptuous language. The 
truth is that one of the compelling reasons wliy we went to New 
York was that these charges having been made and sent out over 
the country, these charges not only against Buchanan but charges 
that other indictments had been procured by Mr. Marshall before 
tbe grand jury Vvithout sufficient evidence, or without any evidence, 
and these gentlemen thought they woulcl go up there and take a 
private look at these grand jury minutes and come back, never 
dreaming of allowing Mr. Buchanan or his counsel to ever put an 
eye on those minutes; and when we got there we asked Mr. Marshall 
if he had objections to submitting the grand jury minutes. Mr. 
Marshall replied that he would have to consult the Attorney General; 
and he did telegraph to the Attorney General, and the Attorney 
General wired back that he did not think the committee ought to 
ask or demand the minutes of the grand jury. 

I can say there are ways in which you can get the minutes of the 
grand jury in other trials; and I am not so sure, gentlemen, I have 
advised all through this hearing the members of the subcommittee 
not to make the grand jury minutes public, not to insist on their 
production, and not to allow any testimony to be presented in this 
hearing that was presented before the grand jury, but to confine 
their hearing, which tliey did, to the question as to whether or not 
any testimony was taken upon v/iiich the grand jury might act. 
Not the sufficiency of it, but was the testimony had; and that was 
the line on which these gentlemen pursued this entire investigation 
up there. When Mr. Marshall presented the telegram, to the mem- 
bers of the subcommittee, that was the end of the grand jury minutes. 
They never issued subpoena duces tecum to get the ininutes at all: 
but 1 think if any court in the land has the power to compel the 
production of the n\inutes of the grand jury in a case, this court 
has got that power. It is the highest court in the world. But they 
did not exercise that power. They never issued a subpoena duces 
tecum, and when Mr. Marshall presented this telegram from the 
Attorney General, that was the end of it. 

Mr. Kelson. We never made it pubhc. We had a little private 
talk with him, but he gave it publicity. 

Mr. Webb. Yes; this newspaper article is headed: "The district 
attorney refuses Buchanan evidence." That is the heading of this 
article I have been quoting from. He went out and gave it to the 



38 H. SNOWDEN MARSHALL. 

newspapers, but the rest of it the subcommittee never made public; 
any part of it. 
He said: 

I told liim yoii were traveling around in your alleged investigation of me with 
Buchanan's couuael, Walsh. 

I beUeve I have read that. I will now read one more extract from 
this letter: 

I said that it was ii^comprehensible to me how your honorable subcommittee should 
rush to the assistance of an indicted defendant; how you had apparently resolved to 
prevent prosecution by causing the district attorney in charge to be publicly slan- 
dered. 

I told liim that I would not permit the prosecution of the persons whose cause you 
had apparently espoused to be impeded by you; I said that if you wanted the minutes 
of the grand jury in any case you would not get them as long as I remained in office. 

Now I will read tlie last paragraph: 

It is amazing to me to think tliat you supposed that I did not understand what you 
have been attempting to do during your visit here. I realized that your effort was to 
ruin me and my office by publishing with your full approval the complaints of various 
persons who have run afoul of the criminal law under my administration. Your sub- 
committee has endeavored by insulting questions to my assistants and others, by giving 
publicity and countenance to the charges of rascals, and by refusing to listen to the 
truth and refusing to examine public records to which your attention was directed to 
publicly disgrace me and my office — 

And so forth. "I propose to make tiiis letter public," and does so, 
and does it before it gets to the hands, so I am informed, of the 
subconrmittee itself. 

Mr. Sterling. Did the subcommittee ask Mr. Marsliall for the 
grand jury minutes in any other cases than the Buchanan case i! 

Mr. Nelson. Yes. 

Mr. Webb. All the cases covered by tiie ciiarge. 

Mr. Nelson. This was the conversation, if you wish it. The diffi- 
culty was to ascertain the truth about these tilings, and knowing that 
it was the practice in New York to have a stenographer in the grand 
jury room, and that this public official had those grand jury minutes, 
we thought that, being a representative of the highest court in the 
land on this matter, we had a right to inspect those grand jury 
minutes; at least we would submit the request to him. So he was 
asked to come before the committee,, and I may say that, while these 
things are little incidents, they show the hostility, the atmosphere 
charged with hostility in that courthouse so far as this district attor- 
ney's office was concerned. It was difficult for the Sergeant at Arms 
of the House to get to him. He will testify here that he had to plead 
with one of his subordinates in order to get to him. He will tell you 
the conversation. Finally he did come up, and then the Sergeant at 
Arms finally persuaded him to come up and see tlie committee. 

Mr. Marshall came up. I will not attempt to picture to you the 
kind of air he assumed and the arrogance. Mr. Carlin tried to intro- 
duce him, bavins met him before, to some of the meinbers of the 
committee, but his hostility was such that any courtesies were impos- 
sible; so Mr. Carlin, the chairman of the subcommittee, tried to 
explain to him that we were a congressional committee trying to 
ascertain these facts ; that a Member had been accused, and that it 
was difficult to ascertain these facts vrithout seeing the grand jury 
minutes. 



H. SN-OWDEN MAESHALL. 39 

We asked him if tlie grand jury minutes were printed. He said they 
were. Mr. Carlin asked him if he would submit them to the members. 
In a hauglity way he said that he would take it up with the Attorney 
General. He pretended not even to have read the charges. I ten- 
dered him tlie Congressional Record. He said, "Send it down." He 
would not take it down. 

Mr. Webb. You mean the Congressional Record ? 

Mr. Nelson. The Congressional Record, whero the charges w<.>r;^ 
in detail. 

Well, that was the intervicv; in which wc also suggested to him 
that he had the perfect right to be present, either by counsel or him- 
seK. Pie told us he would not want anything to do with it and he 
left, as he came, with that superb, arrogant manner of his. WeU, it 
was so ludicrous that we were of course inclined to laugh at the gen- 
tleman's arrogance. 

Mr. Sterling. Did you ask him the question as to whether there 
was any testimony before the grand jury ? 

Mr. Nelson. This man 

Mr. Sterling (interposing) . Mr. Buchanan's charge is that indict- 
ments were found where there was no evidence. 

Mr. Webb. No evidence in one case and not sufficient in another. 

Mr. Sterling. Did you ask him whether or not there was any 
evidence ? 

Mr. Nelson. We did not ask him, because he was the gentleman 
against whom charges were preferred, and it is not customary, you 
know, to ask the respondent or the defendant in the case. It was 
not done in the Wright hearings. We never did that. That is a 
matter for him to volunteer, if he wishes to. 

Mr. Webb. I understand, Judge Nelson, that thereafter he came 
before you informally. 

Mr. Gard. This conversation was entirely executive; did not go 
into the record; was not uttered in the presence of a stenographer, 
and we said this to him. The chairman said to him — ^after the com- 
mittee had conferred about it, the chairman said to him this: ''Have 
you read the charges preferred against you V He said no, he had not 
read them; had not paid any attention to them. We said, "Some 
of the charges are that you have used your ofRce to return indictments 
against persons without any testimony. We should like to have a 
talk with you as to whether you would be willing to submit to the 
committee such minutes of the grand jury as may be called for, or 
whether you woidd prefer us, if we choose, to call for the minutes, 
to ask for them upon the authority of our committee." That was the 
extent of our conversation. He said, "Well, I will take that up with 
the Attorney General," which I think was very proper. Then he 
became, as Mr. Nelson said — his manner was hostile at that time, had 
been hostile all the time. Ho said, "If you want to kiiow anything, 
why do you not ask Buchanan what he did with this money that he 
got from such and such a place." I have forgotten the source. We 
did not make any reply to that, because that was not for us to investi- 
gate. 

Mr. Nelson. We did ask — the chairman did ask for both minutes; 
suggested that not only the minutes in this indictment of Buchanan, 
but also these in the Rae Tanzer case, would be desirable, and 
explained that it would so materially assist our labors if we could say 



40 H. SNOWDEN MARSHALL. 

there was some evidence. He also said that we were representatives 
of the Government; that we assured him it woukl be private, strictly 
private, and that no one else would bo permitted to see them; and 
with that conversation we left it to him to seek information from 
the Attorney General, and he promised to reply promptly. Now, 
mind you, there was a sting of insult in the very reply we got. These 
are niinor matters, but they simply show the hostile attitude of that 
office all the way through . 

Mr. Carlin, the chairman, had tried to ex])lain to him that the 
House seemed to be particularly concerned vnth ascertaining the fact 
whether a Member of the House, in his official capacity, liad been 
indicted for things done in the House, and that we should like to 
ascertain whether they were true or not: whether there was some 
evidence. Mind you, when he replied — and I do not believe it is in 
here — but after tendering him the record iio Si^nt it Ixi.ck with a letter 
saying that he returned it with thanks, etc. Then he said he had 
looked these charges through and be had n.ot found anything there 
along the lines suggested by Mr. Carlin, therefore it must have been 
evolved in the consciousness of some person or persons, the implica- 
tion being direct that some one had told him something that was not 
true. That is just suggestive of the tre;itment we received all the 
way through. 

Mr. Lenroot. At what point in this jn'oceeding was the request 
for the minutes of the grand jury ])referred ? 

Mr. Nelson. In the afternoon of the first day. 

Mr. Lenroot. Of the meeting in New York ? 

Mr. Nelson. In New York; yes, sir. 

]Mr. Gard. Right after we organized. 

Ml". Nelson. We had one or two witnesses, then decided that this 
was a laborious thing to fish around the outside and try to find out 
whether there was e^adence or not": that here was a public document. 
We knew they used these grtuid jmy minutes in the State of New 
York frequently, and for purposes of justice it was always admissible 
to bring then.i out. We were accredited officers of the law; this was 
the high court of impeachment obviously this officer could give us 
access to such documents by which we could at once discharg(^ our 
duty and say to the House, "Yes; there is evidence." 

Mr, Lenroot. You say there were two charges in relation to this 
evidence — one that there was no evidence and the other that there 
was not sufficient evidence. I want to ask whether your subcom- 
mittee decid'^d that it was proper to investigate the question of the 
sufficiency of the evidence and desired it for that purpose ? 

Mr. Nelson. No; I did not mean to imply that. 

Mr. Lenroot. Did you decide that it was not ( 

Ml". Nelson. We did not decide, certainly 

Mr. Lenroot (interposmg) . So far as this inquiry in New York 
was concerned, I mean. 

Mr. Nelson. We went along on the plan that we would ascertain 
whether or not there was probable, prima facie evidence and deter- 
mine whether this man had acted arbitrarily or not, or whether he 
had supplied evidence of such a character that it would be prima 
facie in an indictment of a Member of Congress. 

Mr. Lenroot. Did you then have in mind determinmg whether 
or not the grand jury was warranted if the evidence was sufficient 



11. SNOWUEX .MARSHALL. 41 

lo vvarijint the grand jury in making the indictment, or whether 
there was any evidence ? 

Mr. Nelson. No; we did not attempt to weigh the evidence in the 
sense of determining it was sufficient. We never had that in mind ; 
at least it never occurred to my mind, but merely to determine this, 
whether this man had acted arbitrarily, whether there was evidence 
of such a character to show that he had it in good faith, and not simply 
retaliated against a Member of Congress for what he did in the House. 

Mr. Webb. On that point I want to state to the committee 

Ml'. Nelson (interposing). You will find in the evidence, if you 
will read it, that that was in my mind. The thing I was concerned 
about, gentlemen, was whether a Member of Congress had been 
questioned in this way for things done in the House. Though I 
thought, when we had the grand jurors before us, not to ask as to the 
evidence, but to find out whother the}^ knew of this indictment, 
whether that was talked of in the grand jury — I mean this impeach- 
ment of Mr. ISIarshall: Vv^hether that was talked about in the grand 
jury; what the methods were, whether they had given them a fair 
chance or not; whether lie had simply been indicted with a mass of 
fellows nnd in what way they had handled the matter. We did not 
go into the evidence. We would not permit any questions that 
would tend directly to ask what the evidence was. It was a very 
difficult matter to handle, so we thought if we could get the grand 
jury admitted we could ascertain in a moment, but being denied we 
cUd nothing further in the matter. 

Mr. Card. As far as my own opinion is concerned, I am very frank 
to say to you that I think the subcommittee was entirely without 
authority to weigli the evidence or consider what the evidence 
should be; that it vras limited, necessarily, to whether there was any 
evidence or any approximate evidence which would authorize an 
indictment. In other words, a distinction between returning an 
indictment upon evidence and an indictment by coercion, without 
evidence. 

Mr. Webb. On that point I wish to say that on the 14th day of 
December Mr. Buchanan arose in the House and impeached Mr. 
Marshall, charging five or six different charges. On the 28th day 
of December, 14 days later, the indictment against Mr. Buchanan 
was found; then on" the 12th day of February Mr. Buchanan was 
i-eirapeached, you might say, to another set of formal articlos of im- 
peachment. 

Mr. Gard. .imended charges ^ 

Mr. Webb. Amended charges, and I think he intimated on the floor 
of the House — it was certainly discussed around the table — that this 
indictment of the 2Sth, of Mr. Buchanan, was or might have been— 
looked like it was in retaliation of Buchanan's impeaching measure 
on the 14th day of December, and that is why these o-entlemen 
wanted to satisfy the House that there was no such fact in tiie district 
attorney's conduct, or that it was a fact. That is why, I imagine, 
they were asking these questions. 

Now, gentlemen, I do not believe, as far as I am concerned, that 
I have a particle of feeling against Mr. Marshall, and you gentlemen 
have not, and no member of the committee has. I started out in 
this whole matter with the very highest regard for him. I had heard 
and knew from what a good many said that he was a man of high 



42 H. SNOWDEN MABSHALL. 

character, a great lawyer, and stood splendidly at the bar in New 
York. In fact it was a pleasure to many of us to hear great lawyers 
give him that kind of reputation. 

I am talking around the board now, but the members of the Judi- 
ciary Committee, and I might say a majority of people, probably an 
overwhelming majority of people, feel the same way toward Mr. 
Marshall; and I am going to say further that I thought from the very 
beginning that it was very ijnprobable they would ever fix anything 
on Mr. Marshall to cause the committee of the House to impeach hijii. 
That was the attitude I can say of the chairman, and I believe that 
was in the breasts of all the members of the committee when they 
started out to investigate these charges by direction of the House. 

Gentlemen, as to whether or not this is a contempt is entirely 
within your breasts. I know of no other court, a little police court 
down her(^, or even a magistrate's court, or any other inferior court, 
while hearing the testimony in regard to the defendant, if such judge 
should receive such a letter with the notification to the judge who 
got it that the writer expected to make it public for the purpose of 
disgracing the judge that was investigating him, I know what would 
happen to him. They would put him in jail and put him there for a 
good long term. 

Mr. Garner. In order to make the record perfectly clear, in view 
of Mr. Marshall's statement that, "I said that your expedition to this 
town was not an investigation conducted in good faith," I should like 
to ask the subcommittee whether the investigation was being made 
in good faith or not ? 

Mr. Webb. Entirely so. 

Mr. Nelson. Yes. 

Mr. Garner. And again he says: 

I said that it was incomprehensible to nae how your honorable subconamittee should 
rush tJ the assistance of an indicted defendant. 

Were you gentlemen rushing to the assistance of an indicted 
defendant ? 

Mr. Gard. We were not. We had no idea of doing anything 
except seeking to obtain information. 

Mr. Nelson. In answer to your question, I want to call attention 
to the fact that the Committee on the Judiciary resisted the resolution 
of the House to forthwith instruct the committee to begin the inves- 
tigation. The chairman made a plea, and I did myself, asking you 
first to submit the matter to the Committee on the Judiciary, so we 
might make a preliminary investigatioji in regard to the facts, and it 
was only ])ecause we had tiie overpowering sentiment of the House 
and Mr. Buchanan's added facts and specific charges — he made 40, 
instead of a few— that led the committee to look into this matter. 
And, if I may add, I personally requested the chairman not to be 
appointed on that committee, because I had once served on an 
impeachment committee for three months, and I knew it was a very 
laborious and irksome task. 

Mr. Gardner. He says: 

You had apparciuly resolved to prevent prosecution by causing the district attorney 
in charijo to be publicly slandered. 

Had you gentlemen resolved upon any proceedings? 
Mr. Nelson. Of course not. 



H. SNOWDEN MARSHALL. 43 

Mr. Webb. No. 

Mr. Gardner. I merely asked that, tTiat it may go into the record 
directly. 

Ml'. Webb, Yes; we understand. 

Mr. Crisp. Is that necessary ? Will not the record show, will not 
the resolution show, that these gentlemen were acting in pursuance of 
the direction of the House to make this investigation? 

Mr. Webb. Permit me to go a point further. I want to give you 
some citations on the law, if you will permit me. Whenever you 
gentlemen are wearied I will quit. I have taken more time than I 
intended to take, but that has come about through questions pro- 
pounded by the members of the committee, and I am glad you asked 
questions; that is the best way to elicit information. I hope you will 
keep it up as long as I am talking. 

As I said, it is entirely for this committee and the House to pass 
upon what is contested, and here is what the Supreme Court says in 
the case of iVnderson v. Dunn. You will find the report in 6 Wheaton, 
written by IMr. Justice Jolmson, one of the justices of that court, a 
great justice, and Judge Marshall. Here is what they say about the 
contempt of the House: 

Nor would their situation be materially relieved by resortiiig to their legislative 
power within that district. That power may, indeed, be applied to many purposes 
and was intended by the Constitution to extend to many purposes indispensable to 
the security and dignity of the General Government, but they are purposes of a more 
grave and general character than the offenses wliich may be denominated contempts 
and which, from their very nature, admit of no precise definition. Judicial gravity 
will not admit of the illustrations which this remark would admit of. Its correctness 
is easily tested by pursuing, in imagniation, a legislative attempt at defining the 
cases to which the epithet contempt might be reasonably applied. 

As I said a while ago, Crocker, in section 2, paragraph 5, says: 
And the House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment. 

There have been, from the year 1800, witnesses and slanderers of 
the House and the Senate punished for contempt by your body, up 
to the time Mr. Glover was punished for an assault upon Judge Sims; 
biit every one of these cases arose out of the general power of the 
House and the Senate, as set out in Dunn v. Anderson, to punish for 
contempts against the body. There never has been in the history of 
this Government a plain, straightforward case of contempt under an 
indisputable power of Congress, and that is the sole power of im- 
peachment. There the Constitution makes Congress the highest 
court in the world, as it says in one case it is the grand inquisitor of 
the Nation. 

Gentlemen, I want to submit to you this: If, whenever the House 
of Representatives, in pursuing its constitutional prerogatives, inves- 
tigating officials of the country, who may be bad or good; if you have 
not the power, not only to send your subcommittees and committees 
to investigate charges made by a Member of the House, and protect 
that committee; wherever it goes, with all the dignity and authority 
that any committee or court ought to have, why, then, the power of 
impeachment is nothing but a farce in the hands of the House of 
Representatives. 

Mr. Sterling. I have no doubt but what a contempt committed 
against a committee would be a contempt committed against the 
House. 



4;4 H. SNOWDEN MARSHALL. 

Mr. Webb. That is the point I am arguing, Judge Sterhng. A.s I 
said a while ago, when this committee went to New York it went 
there as the House of Representatives. 

Mr. Sterling. It was the House, acting as such; it was its author- 
ized agent. 

Mr. Crisp. I do not suppose there is any difference of opinion in 
the minds of the committee as to the inherent right of the House 
to punish for contempt. 

Mr. Sterling. I do not think there is any doubt about that. 

Mr. Webb. If there is any doubt about it I want t^) refer you to 
this celebrated case of Dunn r. Anderson, where the court distinctly 
says, as Judge Crisp has suggested, that it has the inliereut power chat 
every representative body has, the right of self-protection and the 
right to repel aiid punish insult to the dignity of that body. But that 
case eveiT arose not in such a clear case as the impeachment process; 
it arose because a witness had refused to answer a question., or had 
made some slanderous charge against the House of Congress or the 
Members, or had attempted to bribe a Member, or had published the 
Journal of the Senate, contrary to the rules of the Senate, or had 
charged that in the sugar schedule of the tariff act that Senators were 
corrupt. In all of those cases both the House and the Senate used 
the inherent ])ower to punish ior contom]~)t. An.d the courts say that 
of necessity thiat power exists. 

But even in Kilbourn v. Thompson (103 U. S., 168), and in some of 
the reasoning in Dunn i\ Anderson, they say there is no doubt about 
it in impeachment matters; and in trying election cases you <k^ not 
have to imply power. The Constitution ex])ressly gives the authority 
to Congress to make this impeachment investigation. And Judge 
Marshall, in the case of Marlboro r. Maryland, I believe it is, says that 
wherever the Constitution gives the Congress the power to do a cer- 
tain thing, ail things that are necessary to carry out that |iower go 
will it incidentally, and one of those j)owers is the power either to 
piutect itself from in.sult and assault by contempt proceedings. 

Mr. Lenroot. A-Mth reference to this matter of punishment, you 
are familiar with the Duanc case, are you not? 

Mr. Webb. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Lenrogt. As I recollect the Duane case, so far as the punish- 
ment is concerned, they instructed the arrest 

Mr. Webb (interposing) . Th(> Vice President ? 

Mr. Lenrogt. No; the President, I think, in that case, was insti- 
tuting the proper prosecution. I do not find there was any statute 
then with ref( renco to the Constitution for refusal to testify. 

Mr. Webb. No; that was passed in 1857. 

Mr. Lenrggt. Now on what theory, have you thought of it, did 
the Senate in that case not exercise its own power of punishment, 
but passed it into the judicial branch of the Government? 

Mr. Webb. I am not sure, but 

The Chairman. Was that the Duane case ? 

Mr. Lenrggt. Yes. 

The Chairman. That was punished by the Senate, and Duane 
was confined 30 days for the printing of that article in the Aurora. 

Mr. Nelsgn. I remember that distinctly, if I may answer. 

Mr. Lenroot. Perhaps I am mistaken. 



]1. SiNOWDKX :.iAilSllALL. 45 

Mr. Nelson. No; you niv cornet. There was the contempt by 
[)ubhcati()n, aiul the Senate took jurisdiction, brought him to the 
bar of the House, and there was an indictment; he refused to testify, 
so he was held for about 30 days as a contumacious witness; then 
toward the end of the s; ssion of the Senate — the last day — it was 
obviously too httle time to act upoii it, so they simply disposed of 
the case b}^ adopting — recjuesting the President to direct the law 
officer to bring action in tlie courts, and the court sent him to jail 
for 30 days and assessed the cost upon him. The answer to your 
question is it was the last day and th<-y had ]io further time, and that 
was the only way of disposing of it. 

Mr. Lenroot. Then Cong.\ ss has no power to punish beyond the 
term ? 

Mr. Nelson. Well, the ^Senate's term is a question of doubt. 
But let me emphasize this fact, that in that case you see the three 
branches of the Government have cooperated in punishing for con- 
tempt of a branch of the Congress. 

Mr. Webb. Here is what is said in the Duane case: 

The question of the power of the Senate to punish for contempt arose in 1800 iu the 
case of William Duane over a publication in the General Advertiser or Aurora, which 
was found to be false, defamatory, scandalous, and malicious, and Duane was found 
to be in contempt of the Senate. He appeared before the Senate in response to first 
notice but failed and declined to appear when ordered at a second date. This being 
at the end of the session, on the last day of the session he was ordered prosecutol by 
the courts of law, and was prosecuted and punished. 

Here is what Senator Sumner says. He even says the House has 
more authority in a c,asn of this sort than the Senate. He said, in 
1860: 

To the Plouse of Representatives are given inquisitorial powers expressly by the 
Constitution, while no such powers are given to the Senate. This is expressed in the 
words, 'the House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment." 
Here, then, obvioiisly, is something delegated to the House, and not delegated to the 
Senate — namely, those inquiries which are in their nature preliminary to an impeach- 
ment — which may or may not end in impeachment; and since, by the Constitution, 
e\.-ery ''civil officer" of the General Government may be impeached, the inquisitorial 
|)owers of the House may be directed against every "civil officer," from the President 
dnwn to the lowest on the list. 

This is an extract from Senator Sumner's speech in the Senate. 

Now, I want to read another case. Tiiis is the most celebrated case 
over written, in my opinion, of the power of the House to punish for 
contempt. It was written, as I said a while ago, by a court composed 
of such distinguished men as Judge Story and Judge Marshall. I will 
just quote one or two extracts here: 

This result is fraught with too much absurdity not to bring into doubt the soundness 
of anj'- argument from which it is derived. That a deliberate assembly, clothed with 
the majesty of the people and charged wiih the care of all that is dear to them.; com- 
posed of the most distinguished citizens, selected and drawn together from every 
r(uarter of a great nation^ whose deliberations are required by public opinion to be 
(•ondu(;ted under the eye of the public, and whose decisions must be clothed with all 
that, sanctity which uiilimited confidence in their wisdom and purity can inspire; 
that such an assembly should not possess the power to suppress rudeness or repel 
insult is a supposition too wild to be suggested. 

Mr. Moon. Is that Justice Johnson's opinion ? 

Mr. Webb. Yes, sir. That opinion is full of just such expressions 
p.s that. 

Mr. Stekling. How did that case come before the court? 



46 H. SNOWDEN MARSHALL. 

Ml'. Webb. Suit brought aguinst the Sergeant at Arms. The Ser- 
geant at Anns had Anderson, a witness, in custody, and ii oarne up 
collaterally. They have held that in a direct order of the House for 
the arrest of a person the courts have no jurisdiction to take him out 
of the custody of the House, and can oidy be brought up collaterally, 
and not directly. 

In Kilbourn v. Thompson, wliich 1 referred to a while ago 

Mr. Sterling. Was that suit for false imprisonment 'i 
Ml*. Webb. Yes, sir; that was what Kilbourn contended, that it 
is a case of false imprisonment, Kilbourn refusing to answer certain 
questions put to him by the House of Representatives concerning the 
business of a real estate partnership, concerning holdings of real 
estate, a real estate pool. 

The powers of Congress itself, when acting through the concurrence of both branches, 
are dependent solely on the Constitution. Such as are not conferred by that instru- 
ment, either expressly or by fair implication from what is granted, are "reserved to 
the States respectively or to the people." Of course, neither branch of Congress, when 
acting separately, can lawfully exercise more power than i.s conferred by the Consti- 
tution on the whole body, except in the few instances where authority is conferred 
on either House separately, as in the case of impeachments. 

There, this judge, in Kilbourn r. Thompson, points out that the 
House of Representatives has more power than Congress combined 
has, because the Constitution confers that power solely upon the 
House of Repi'esentatives, and at other places in this same decision 
they are referred to, the great power of impeachment, as authority 
that is not doubted at all. 

If there is any doubt about the attitude of the Supreme C'ourt on 
this question, since the opinion of Kilboui'n ?\ Thompson, there has 
another case arisen, the Chapman, which you will find rej^orted under 
title "In re Chapman, petitioner, in 166 U. S., 661," and here again 
Chief Justice Fuller, writing the unanimous opinion of the court, in 
which Judge Harlan concurred 

Mr. Nelson. Justice White was on the court, too ? 

Ml'. Webb. Yes; reiterated the statement that the House of Repre- 
sentatives has the mherent power to punish for contempt. 

This case arose m this miinner. This man Chapn.ian was indicted 
for refusing to answer questions and was convicted, but in 1857 the 
House of Representatives — Congress, rather — passed a law making it a 
misdemeanor for a witness to refuse to answer questions. When this 
case came to the Supreme Court, Chapman's counsel took the position 
that Congress, having passed that law, divested itself of the power to 
punish for contempt, because there could only be one offense, and if 
Congress was going to let the courts punish for refusing to answer 
questions, then the House itself could not do it. 

This is what the court says : 

While Congress can not divest itself or either of its Houses of the irdiereut power 
to punish for contempt, it may provide that contumacy in a witness called to testify 
in a matt3r properly undor consideration by either House, and deliberately refusing 
to answer questions pertinent thereto, shall be a misdemeanor against the United 
States. 

Although that is done, the House and vSenate still have the inherent 
power to punish for contempt, etc. 

Under the Constitution the Senate of the United States has the power to try im- 
peachments; to judge of the elections, returns, and qualifications of its own Members, 



H. SNOWDEX MARSHALL. 47 

tu detLTiuiii-- the ruljs: 1 1' ita prucev'diiif^w, puniah its Mjrrj.l)^'rs lor disorderly behavior, 
and, with the coiicurrenco of two-thirds, expel a Member; and it necessarily possesses 
the inherent power of s^lf-protection. 

The refusal to answer pertinent questions in a matter of inquiry within the juris- 
diction of the Senate, of course, constitutes a contempt of that body, and by the 
statute this is also made an offense against the Unit'd States. 

The history of congressional investigations demonstrates the difficulties under 
which the two Houses have labored, respectively, in compelling un-ndlling witnesses 
to disclose facts deemed essential to taking definite action, and Ave quite agree with 
Chief Justice Alvey, delivering the opinion of the Court of Appeals, "that Congress 
possessed the constitutional poAver to enact a statute to enforce the attendance of 
witnesses and to compel them to make disclosure of evidence to enable the respective 
bodies to discharge their legitimate functions"; and that it was to effect this that the 
act of 1857 was passed. It was an act necessary and proper for carrying into exe- 
cution the powers vested in i ongress and in each House thereof. We grant that 
Congress could not divest itself, or either of its Houses, of the essential and inherent 
power to i)unish for contempt, in cases to which the power of either House properly 
extended: but, l;)ecause Congress, by the act of 1857, sought to aid each of the Houses 
in the dis 'harge of its constitutional functions, it does not follow that any delegation 
of the power in each to punish for contempt was in^'olved, and the statute is not 
open to objection on that account. 

Nevertheless, although the power to punish for contempt still remains in each 
House, we must decline to decide that this law is invalid because it provides that 
contumacy in a witness called to testify in a matter projDerly under consideration 
by either House, and deliberately refusing to answer questions pertinent thereto, 
shall be a misdemeanor against the United States, who are interested that the au- 
thority of neither of their departments, nor of any branch thereof, shall be defied 
and set at naught. 

Gentlemen, that is all I eare to say there. I have got a mass of 
matter here, bnt I want to refer you gentlemen to a recent report so 
al>ly presented by Judge Davis and Judge Crisp and the other mem- 
])ers of tliat subcommittee. 

Mr. Crisp. Jud^e Nelson \ 

Mr. Webb. And Judge Nelson. I'hey discussed the power of the 
House to punish for contempt. It is the only copy I have. 

Mr. Lenroot. I should like to ask, if you are through with your 
main argument, one or two questions upon the resolution before us. 
Were precedents followed confirming this resolution '? 

Mr. Webb. I tliink so. 

Mr. Lenroot. Wliat I have especially in. mind, the resolution 
which upon its face seems to delegate to this committee the power 
of finding the fact. 

Mr. Webb. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Lenroot. Namely, the contempt. 

Mr. Webb. I tliink that is almost the resolution that is set out in 
the Sims-Glover case. 

Mr. Lenroot. Was it the thought that this committee will find 
the fact — tliat the House has delegated to this committee its power 
over the subject? 

Mr. Sterling. Do you sa}- finding the fact, or reportiiig the fact? 

Mr. Lenroot. Finding the fact. 

Ml. Webb. That is the same as reporting. 

Mr. Sterling. I do not believe it is. 

Mr. Moon. Then we want to report the procedure. 

Mr. Lenroot. And the procedure, and in case they find a contempt 
has been committed to th(^ end that the privilege of th(> House may 
be maintained. 



48 H. SNOWDEN MAKSHALL. 

Mr. Nelson. In the Sims case we found as a fact 

Mr. Webb. Here is what was said: 

Resolved, That a committee of five Members be appointed to investigate * * * 
for the pm'pose of ascertaining the facts, etc.. that said committee shall have power 
to send for persons and papers. 

Mr. Lenroot. Is it your idea that this committee shall find the 
fact, and that it shall then be conclusive upon the House, or th( 
House itself, upon the proper matter getting heforo tlio House, will 
pa^•.:i upoi! it ? 

T\Ir. Webh. I think undoubtedly tbo Hou.-c WiMits tliis committee 
to make r. finding of fact. Of course, no fii ding of fact will be bind- 
ing upon the House if it wiints to disregard it, but I think the House 
wants a finding of ivA'i, and 1 think that \^ the coi'r~'e which has beeii 
pursued during years past. 

Mr. Steklin(}. In that Glover case the committee recommended 
and set out th*^ method of procedure, and the House followed it. 

Mr. Lenroot. In some of the cases I notice in the reports, after 
finding the fact they set out the procedure by directing or recom- 
mending the method in which the trial sliall go on in the House: 
questions to be asked by the Speaker, and so on. "VVliether it is 
necessary for us to go that far or not I do not know. 

^Ir. Crisp. We set that out. I remember a finding of facts was 
read to Glover when he was brought before the bar, and the Speaker 
asked him if he desired to be heard, by himself or attorney, and he 
admitted the facts, and the whole procedure was set out. 

Mr. McoN. ^Vhere they do not admit the facts the procedure 
should then go further and show the manner in which the trial 
should be held. 

Mr. Sterling. I know one or two instances where the trial was had 
before the House. It would be perfectly proper to refer it to a 
committee. 

Mr. Lenroot. I think that would be true. I was wondering 
whether that was the thought in the mind in this resolution, or 
whether it was merely a recommendation of the committee to go 
before the House. 

Air. Crisp. The House practically refers the contest of the seating 
of its own Members to a committee. The House does not take uj) 
the question of facts there. For instance, the Election Committee 
fuids all facts, then makes a report. 

Mr. Lenroot. It goes to the method of our report, whether we 
report and that report is sustained, or whether the House itself shall 
have the right. 

Mr. Webb. Now, Mr. Chairman, Judge Nelson and Judge Gard 
are here. 

Mr. Moon. We shall be glad to hear from both of them. Which 
one of the gentlemen will address the committee? 

STATEMENT OF HON. WARREN GARD, A REPRESENTATIVE 
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO. 

Mr. Gard. I merely desire to state, gentlemen, that, despite the 
fact the letter was sent to the subcommittee, and incidentally against 
the whole House, by Mi'. Marshall, district attorney for the southern 
district of New York, that I feel that I can be so impartial as to return 



H. SNOWDEN, MAESHALL. 49 

an honest expression of opinion upon the evidence submitted, upon 
the facts in the case; that is, as to the ultimate thing to be deter- 
mined, whether or not Mr. Marshall is or is not guilty of the charges 
of impeachment which have been preferred against him; and, 
therefore, as it is personal largely to me as one of the members of the 
subcommittee, I would refrain from expressing any opinion upon 
this matter wliich has been brought before you now, to wit, the 
charge of contempt, and I would be very glad to assist in informing 
the c(unmittee of any of the facts of which you care to have notice, 
other than those which appear from a casual reading of the record, 
because I, with other members of the committee, have probably 
a more comprehensive knowledge of the facts and can explain them 
to you in a quicker manner than by reading them over. 

Mr.' Sterling. May I ask you, Mr. Gard, did all of the members of 
the committee go to the district attorney's office with reference to 
these grand jury minutes ? 

Mr. Gard. We did not go to the district attorney's office. The 
facts in that case were these: That after we met in New York we 
heard one or two witnesses, and we determined that the big thing 
for us to find out was whether or not the charge by Buchanan was 
true; the charge that he made, and which was discussed on the floor 
of the House, and which seems to me to be really the controlling 
charge in the passage of the resolution creating this committee and 
authorizing the investigation of the impeachment charges, was this : 

That Buchanan, a Member of Congress, had been indicted by this 
district attorney because of matters which he (Buchanan) had spoken 
upon the floor of the House, and that he had been indicted because 
of that fact and without evidence. That was a charge which Bu- 
chanan made, and he reiterated it before the Judiciary Committee as 
to himself and other persons. But in so far as I am concerned, and I 
think in so far as the House was concerned, the very vital question was 
to determine whether or not the privileges of speech on the floor of 
the House had been invaded by this district attorney and this indict- 
ment had been returned through the agency of the district attorney 
because of what Mr. Buchanan had said on the floor of the House. 

I refer to what Mr. Buchanan originally said when, on December 14, 
1915, he presented some 10 charges of impeachment. After these 
10 charges of impeachment were presented on December 14, and 
about two weeks thereafter, he was indicted by this grand jury in the 
southern district of New York, of which district Mr. Marshall was the 
district attorney, upon this charge of conspiracy of an attempt — I 
have forgotten the language. 

Mr. Webb. To restrain interstate and foreign trade. 

Mr. Lenroot. Let me ask you this: Was there any evidence be- 
fore your committee on the subject as to whether or not there had 
been newspaper reports of the probable indictment of Mr. Buchanan 
before the impeachment ? 

Mr. Gard. No, we did not go into the discussion of newspaper 
reports. I am frank to say to you that we discovered evidence — 
this is one of the facts — we (lid discover evidence that there had been 
a consideration of the charge upon which Mr. Buchanan was later 
indicted. 

37214— H. Rept. 544, G4-1 4 




50 H. SNOWDEN MAESHALL. 

If the committee will pardon me a moment I will tell them, as a 
matter of fact, the way this thing came up. There was a man by the 
name of Von Rintehn, who was a German agent. He came to this 
country, so the evidence showed, with some money from his Govern- 
ment, first for the purpose of buying supphes; and it was said in the 
evidence which we obtained from those who testified (notably from 
a man by the name Bielaski, who is Chief of the Secret Service Bureau 
here in Washington, attached to the Department of Justice) that, 
faihng to buy supplies, he was attempting to influence persors to 
obstruct interstate commerce and trade by inciting strikes and dam- 
aging buildings and things of that kind. 

The matter first arose by reason of the application of Von Rintelin 
for a passport as an American citizen. He had been in this country 
and desired to return to Germany or England, I have forgotten 
which. At any rate, he made an application to the State Department 
for a passport, giving a fictitious name. While he was in New York 
it seems that Von Rintehn, who had not been suspected, went out 
to dinner one night with a lady, and during the course of the dinner 
confided to this woman 

Mr. Crisp. Another Samson ? 

Mr. Gard. Another Samson. Confided to her what hehad done, and 
somewhat boastfully spoke of his progress and achievements along 
the lines they said he had been commissioned to act. Thereupon 
this woman reported the facts by letter to the Secretary of State, 
and the Secretary of State caused investigation to be made through 
the officers cf that department, and that was the beginning of the 
investigation against Von Rintehn. 

In the meantime Von Rintelin had taken passage on boat; he did 
not get the passport, but he had taken passage and was on the iiigh 
seas at the time they discovered the attempted fraud in the matter 
of the passport. He arrived in England and was taken from tne 
boat and was interned, and is now interned in some British prison. 

From the Von Rintelin passport case tnere developed the activities 
of Von Rintelin with David Lamar, familiarly known as the "Wolf 
of Wall Street," and others — a man by tne name of Martin and a 
man by the name of Schulteis, I believe. 

Mr. Webb. Also Taylor and Monnet ? 

Mr. Gard. Yes. And from the Martin and Schulteis end of it 
there developed the organization of what was called Labor's National 
Peace Council, it being the charge that Von Rintelin had subsidized 
Lamar by money, and that Lamar and Schulteis and Martin, I 
believe, had organized or attempted to organize t lis Labor's National 
Peace Council, and that Mr. Buchanan, our colleague from Illinois, 
was the first president of Labor's National Peace Conference. 

It was from that state of affairs that the investigation in the dis- 
trict attorney's office was made primarily, as I have said, foUowang the 
trail of the fraudulent passport case of Von Rintelin, afterwards 
leading down into the activities of Lamar, of Martin, and of Scimlteis, 
and then aU together leading into the activities of Buchanan and 
ex-Representative Fowler and ex-Attorney Monnet, of Oaio, and 
other persons who were identified with what is known as Labor's 
National Peace Conference. 



H. SNOWDEN MAKSHALL. 51 

But it is fair to say, because it is a fact, at least I would say it 
was an established fact, that the evidence we had showed that there 
was an investigation of this case as early as September of 1915, the 
latter part of yeptember, and it is probably, while of course we did 
not get the evidence and could not establish it positively — it is 
probable at least to my mind that there was evidence being con- 
sidered which bore either directly or indirectly upon the association 
of Mr. Buchanan with this charge of attempting to impede interstate 
commerce, so that is the statement with regard to the original inves- 
tigation. 

While that disposed of one branch of it there still remained the 
branch, as charged by Mr. Buchanan that this indictment, which is 
an indictment of conspiracy — and by the way, I may stop here long 
enough to say that it is the practice, it seems to be the invariable 
practice in the courts in New York, in the United States District 
Court of New York to obtain first an indictment against a defendant 
for commission of a specific crime, and to follow the indictment for 
actual commission of the crime with an indictment for conspiracy, in 
which they proceed to include not alone the defendant but every 
person that they can possibly associate in any way with the defend- 
ant. Tiiey have even included in certain cases witnesses, and every 
person that they can associate in any branch of the case, directly or 
indirectly. So that the committee upon its first day thought, and 
honestly thought, that sitting in a purely executive session, Mr. 
Buchanan not being present nor his attorneys nor anyone, no stenog- 
rapher, just the three members of the committee — we thought of 
looking at the minutes of the grand jury to determine whether or not 
there had been evidence offered before the grand jury, particularly 
against Mr. Buchanan, because that was the matter that we were 
immediately charged to investigate. And, as I have said, it seemed 
to me that the attitude of the Lnited States district attorney at that 
time was eminently proper, because when we called h"m in, as I have 
said it was purely a little round-table talk; no one was present; we 
said to him, "Tliese charges have been made by Eepresentative 
Buchanan; that his indictment and other indictments have been 
returned without evidence," and we said we had been commissioned 
to investigate this, and we asked him whether he would voluntarily 
submit the minutes of the grand jury in certain cases, such cases as wo 
might desire to look at, or whether he would prefer that we issue 
the process of our committee. He said that tliat was a matter he 
felt he should considt witli the Attorney General about, and he asked 
sufRcient time to communicate by letter or telegram with the Attor- 
ney General and we readdy accorded him that, and he did so com- 
municate with the Attorney General, and he advised us as his 0]):n- 
ion and that of the Attorney General that the minutes should not be 
given to this congressional committee. 

Thereupon we did not pursue the subject any further, but we did 
proceed along the lines of the examination of some four or five of the 
grand jurors who returned this indictment. In each case, as my 
recollection is, we told them that we realized what the ordinary oath 
of a grand juror was, and that we did not wish to insist upon any ques- 
tion which they thought should be privileged or which would in any 
way violate their oath, because all of the committee felt that we were 
not judges of the weight or of the sufficiency of the evidence, but only 



62 H. SNOWDEN MARSHALL. 

as to whether or not the charges had been sustained and that indict- 
ments were being returned without evidence and solely by direction 
of the district attorney for the southern district of New York. 

As I have stated, we heard the evidence of four or five — five, I be- 
lieve — members of the grand jury, and then we proceeded along the 
lines of other evidence. 

Mr. Crisp. May I interrupt you there? 

Mr. Gard. Certainly, sir. 

Mr. Crisp. It was stated by Judge Nelson that it was common 
practice in New York to have grand jury presentments presented to 
the courts when they were necessary in evidence. What method do 
they take in the State court; do they get a subpoena duces tecum? 

Mr. Gard. You mean to produce the records of the evidence of the 
grand jury ? 

Mr. Crisp. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Gard. In the New York court the practice is this, so I was 
told. When you desire the production of the minutes of the grand 
jury the defendant files a motion with the court asking that the 
county district attorney produce for the exammation of the defendant 
the records of the minutes of the grand jury, and while that is a 
privilege, it is a privilege entirely within the discretion of the court, 
and the evidence before us was that it is a privilege which is very 
seldom given — that the courts in New York have almost universally 
held that these minutes should not be offered to the defendant. 

In some places, as members of this committee know, the names of 
witnesses are returned upon indictments, but in the New York courts 
that practice is not followed. 

Mr. Crisp. I did not make myself clear. I understood that 
Federal grand jury presentments were presented to the court. That 
is what I wanted to know, it that is true. 

Mr. Gard. No; I think not. 

Mr. Crisp. What I wanted to get at was whether there was any 
discrimmation in refusing the mmutes to this committee where they 
did furnish minutes to the court. 

Mr. Gard. No; I think not. This is what use they make of grand 
jury minutes in the Federal court. There is no Federal statute 
authorizing the defendant to have the privilege of inspecting the 
minutes', but there is such a statute in the State of New York, and 
the ordinary rule is that the State statutes govern in the jurisdiction 
where the United States authority is invoked. But it is my under- 
standing that the courts always hold that it is a matter entirely in the 
discretion of the court and, as a matter of fact the minutes have very 
seldom been awarded in the county courts and, as far as I am advised, 
none at all in the Federal courts. 

Mr. Crisp. The Federal courts arc the ones in regard to which I 
inquired. 

Mr. Gard. There are none at all given m the Federal courts; there 
have been some requests made, but the minutes have never been 
given to the inspection of the defendants. We did not, of course, 
intend to have these m.inutes given to the inspection of the defendant 
Buchanan, or any of the other defendants. It was simply a matter 
in our mind of looking at these minutes to determine a question as 
quickly and correctly as possible whether or not there had been evi- 



H. SNOWDEN MARSHALL. 53 

dence, and at. what time the evidence began to associate itself with 
the investigation against Buchanan as bearing upon the charge 
wliich Buchanan made, that his indictment was directly caused by 
what he said on the floor of the House on December 14, 1915. That 
is when he impeached Marshall. We thought that by seeiiig the 
record of the evidence we could find whether or not when Buchanan 
made this fii'st charge there had been up to that time anything 
against Buchanan or whether it was after that and their reason of 
making this charge was that Buchanan had been associated in this 
chai'ge of conspiracy. 

I think it is in the ro.ind of every member of the House that the big 
(piostion, the solenm question in all this case is as to whether or not 
the privileges of Mem.bers of the House in free speech on the floor 
have been invaded, otherwise it is ro.y opinion that the great bulk of 
the charges here contained are charges that never should have been 
brought to the attention of the impeachment proceedings, but 
nevertheless they are hei'e, and largely here because of that one pre- 
dominant fact, and we have been commissioned to make investigation 
of them. 

Mr. Sterling. Did you learn this, as to whether or not Buchanan's 
case and Fowler's case had been presented to a grand jury before a 
date in December that Buchanan made the first charges? 

jMr. Gard. I said that was the reason we desired to inspect the 
minutes; but there was evidence that the original case, the Von 
Rintelin case, had been considered as early as September, of 1915, 
and that this Buchanan case is an outgrowth of the original case; 
it all grew out of the fiTst charge against this German agent, Von 
Rintelin, and we could not find from the evidence of the jurors, whose 
testimony necessarily would not be as conclusive as the written 
record, when it was that the charge against Buchanan was first made, 
or that there was any assertion of investigation against Buchanan, 
so we thought if we could get these minutes and see them, they 
would forever settle that one disputed question. 

The minutes were refused us by the district attorney, acting on the 
advice of the Attorney General, it is fair to add, and we felt that the 
matter was of probably such privileged nature, since the Attorney 
General directed that the district attorne}^ not disclose the minutes, 
that we would not pursue that investigation any further. 

Mr. Sterling. Did the grand jurors answer your questions? 

Mr. Gard. They did. 

Mr. Sterling. That is in this record ? 

Mr. G^mD. Yes, sir; they answered very franldy, most of them. 
Of course some ol them did not have very good recollection about the 
matter, but one or two of the witnesses were surprisingly good in my 
mind in what they did recollect about the proceedings before the grand 

jury- 

Then the committee followed the further investigation of testimony 
and as the chairman of the committee has said, and Mr. Nelson said 
likewise, they were forced to follow, as in every impeachment, the 
testimony of the man who makes the charge of impeachment. 

To my mind the charge of impeachment is of such solemn character 
that no Member of the House should make the charge unless he has 
evidence which he honestly believes will substantiate or corroborate 




54 H. SNOWDEN MARSHALL. 

at least the charge? he has made, and therefore we took the testimony, 
the names of the witnesses given us by Mr. Buchanan, 

Of course we would have the committee know, which is a fact, the 
pccuUar circumstances of this case in that it related to Mt . Buchanan 
itself. It is not such a case as one would consider against a district 
judge, or a judge of any other kind, or any other Federal officer 
affecting his conduct in general, but here is an allegation that the con- 
duct complained of by this Member of Congress affected him indi- 
vidually; that the conduct of the distiict attorney for the southern 
district'^of New York affected the substantial rights of freedom and 
liberty and the free speech of this Member of the House of Repre- 
sentatives. 

Then Mr. Buchanan said on the floor of the House, and we all know, 
I suspect more or less of the truth of this, that he was not a nian of 
large means; that he was not a man skilled in the interpretation of 
law, and the committee being not a court, being not commissioned 
to sit in final judgment on the matter, but being a committee of 
investigation and therefore largely inquisitorial, afforded what it 
thought a reasonable latitude to this Member of Congress, possibly a 
latitiide somewhat greater in extent than it would have afforded 
imder any other circumstances; but b?ing a Member of Congress, and 
under the conditions I disclosed, we felt that the House would demand 
of the committee a substantial compliance with the request of the 
House that we investigate these matters which Mr. Buchanan had 
said upon his authority as a Member of Congress were charges of 
impeachment, so that we got these witnesses from day to day and 
from time to time from Buchanan, and so far as the attorneys were 
concerned, being present, Mr. Walsh and David Slade were present, 
that is true, except when we did resolve to go into executive session. 

The complaint is made that we should have been all the time in 
executive session. I do not know as to that, but I have served on 
the impeachment case of Judge Dayton down in West Virginia last 
year and all the hearings we had were open hearings. We had none 
at aU of a secret character, and the evidence in that case was pi'epared 
and many of the questions were asked by attorneys employed by an 
association which was opposed to the continuance of Judge Dayton 
on the bench. 

Two different attorneys were present and prepared the case and 
asked questions; of course, the members of the committee asked 
questions too; but these attorneys were from time to time privileged 
by the committee to ask questions. So that was the plan we adopted 
in New York. 

It is probably well to advise this committee also that the news- 
paper men in New York are a very enterprising lot, and it was a 
matter of investigation of the United States attorney up there and 
was a very large thing to them. There were probabl}^ 20 or 25 
newspaper men there all the time and we thought than rather to have 
a garbled report go out, that in so far as we could, in so far as the 
circumstances would authorize, we would prefer to have open hear- 
ings, so that there could be no mistake as to what was said and by 
whom it was said. 

In the consideration of these matters, in these open hearings, we did 
not, as the letter of Mr. Marshall states, call "every rogue or scoun- 



H. SNOWDEN MARSHALL. 55 

drel," or whatever his language is. We had such men who appeared 
voluntarily as a witness, as Mr. Wise, the former district attorney 
in New York, the predecessor of Mr. Marshall. We had IVIr. Stans- 
field, who is a leading New York attorney. We had the county 
district attorney, Swan, who appeared there to testify. We had Mr. 
Whitney, an associate of Mr. Wise: we had several other New York 
attorneys of high standing, including Martin Manton and Martin 
Littleton, a former Member of this House, probably known to many 
members of the committee, and there was no evidence offered as the 
chairman has said, and no evidence taken by the committee of any- 
one whom we thought would come within the scope of "rogues," 
as charged in this letter. But even if there had been, I think the 
committee was thoroughly able to distinguish between evidence 
influenced by bias or prejudice or untruth, or even personal motives, 
and evidence which would be truthful evidence — and it was not that 
Mr. Marshall waited until there could be any determination by this 
committee — but it was an attack upon what the committee was 
likely to do before there was any indication of what they really did 
intend to report. 

The evidence proceeded along lines embraced solely in the charges 
of impoachment, until there came this matter of the association 
between the publication of this letter and what occurred afterwards. 
This publication was made, so the evidence discloses, by a man of the 
name of Holme, who was a British subject, and, as the letter discloses, 
was made afterwards by information furnished him by the district 
attorney. The language used by the district attorney is contained in 
the letter which you have been advised of. 

After this letter was received the committee made no comment upon 
it. Since the letter has been received the committee has from time to 
time heard other evidence, and is endeavoring to determine the truth 
of the charges made by Mr. Buchanan without respect to the criticism 
if such it may be called, of the committee in this letter, and I can 
assure the committee 

Mr. Moon (interposing). How long did your committee remain 
taking testimony after the receipt of this letter ? 

Mr. Gard. They remained takmg testimony — well, we are still tak- 
ing testimony, Mr. Moon. 

Mr. Moon. I mean up there on this trip. 

Mr. Gard. The committee had finished its taking of testimony in 
New York. The committee worked on Monday, Tuesday, Wednes- 
day, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday in New York. On Saturday 
we adjourned early because some of the members desired to return to 
Washington, and at about 3 o'clock m the afternoon notice of this was 
transmitted to Mr. Carlin, so far as my mformation goes. I did not 
sec the letter until later, when Mr. Carlm, the chairman of the com- 
mittee to whom it w^as addressed, showed me the letter. 

Mr. Sterling. Then vou did not go back to New York any more ? 

Mr. Gard. No, sir; we did not go back to New York any more. 
We held a session in New York on Saturday, but this letter was de- 
livered to Mr. Carlin by messenger on Saturday afternoon after we 
had finished our labors "up there, and so had announced. 

Mr. Lenroot. At this executive session the hearing shows that you 
adjourned at 12 o'clock noon after holding your executive session. 




56 H. SNOWDEN MARSHALL. 

At that executive session did you determine you had completed 
your investigation so far as the New York end was concerned ? 

Mr. Gard. Yes, we had heard all of the witnesses whose names had 
been given to us as being witnesses who we could get in the city of 
New York on these different lines. 

Mr. Lenroot. May I ask you what were your relations with these 
attorneys of Mr. Buchanan's in New York ? 

Mr. Gard. I will be very frank to tell you that. Mr. Buchanan, as 
you know, is not an attorney. He has no knowledge of how any 
charges should be framed or how they should be presented. 

He was represented in Washington first by former Congressman 
Hill, of Illinois, who, I think, still appears sometimes as his repre- 
sentative. Then he secured the services of a man by the name of 
English to act as his attorney in the city of New York, Mr. English 
being the same man who was a short time ago shot and killed by his 
wife in a little mountain home down below Frederick, Md. 

When we got to New York, Mr. Buclianan told us that Mr. English 
was no longer appearing as his counsel; that he had a man by the 
name of Walsh as his counsel. I have forgotten what Walsh's first 
name is, but I think it is Walter J. Walsh; and Mr. Walsh appeared, 
I believe, with a written authority from Mr. Buchanan that he was 
his attorne}' ; at least he was the attorney for Mr. Buchanan. 

Our relations with these attorneys were the same. When we heard 
the case in Washington, we permitted Mr. Hill to be present. It was 
our policy to examine the witnesses ourselves, and we then conferred 
at the conclusion of the examination with the attorneys and asked 
them if there were any questions which occurred to them that we 
had not asked, and sometimes they did ask an occasional question. 

We pursued the same course with respect to Mr. Walsh, except in 
one or two instances, where .Mr. Walsh said that there were some 
matters of which he had Imowledge of that he thought he could 
obtain the evidence better than by having the committee examine, 
so the cliairman of the committee permitted him to examine the 
witnesses. 

Mr. Moon. You let Mr. Buchanan be represented by counsel when 
necessary ? 

Mr. Gard. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Lenroot. What I have in mind, particularly, was this: Your 
relations with these attorneys were entirely within your official 
capacitv ? 

Mr. Card. Entirely. There was some feeling on the part of Mr. 
Buchanan that we had not given sufficient latitude to his counsel, I 
am frank to say. But I thought we had. I felt that the committee 
was really the body which should ask the questions and that we 
should permit the attorneys for Mr. Buchanan to be present only in 
an advisory capacity. W^e had no relations with them except of an 
official character. Personally I did not see any of Mr. Buchanan's 
attorneys at aiiy time except wlien they were in the court room, and 
I had no accjuaintance cither with Mr. English, Mr. Walsh, or any of 
tlie other attorneys of Mr. Buchanan, except Mr. Hill. I Icnew liim, 
of course, as a Member of Congress last year, but our relations with 
them w(n-e purely ofhcial. 

Mr. Lenroot. One other question. Tin*oughout tliis entire pro- 
ceeding your committee had in mind Mr. Buchanan's personal in- 
terest in this case ? 



H. SNOWDEN MARSHALL. 5Y 

Mr. Gaed. Entirely so. 

Mr. Lenroot. And you suspected him of the desire to secure evi- 
dence that would aid him in the defense of the indictment against 
him ? 

Mr. Gard. Of course we indirectly had that in mind. I am sure 
I did. I felt there might be charges against the committee and the 
fact might be charged against Congress that if we went along a 
certain line of attempting to inquire into evidence that we might be 
accused of doing it for the purpose of helping Mr. Buchanan, who 
was charged with a criminal offense, and I have felt and feel now, I 
am very frank to say, that I do not consider the privileges of the 
House, or our natural sympathy with a colleague as a member of 
the House, would call for any such consideration by either the sub- 
committee or the Members of the House. I believe if Mr. Buchanan 
is guilty of this charge that he should be prosecuted as any other 
person should be prosecuted and that there should be no special 
favors shown him by reason of any congressional investigation which 
would advise him in advance of the evidence which the Government 
had against him. If that could be true, of course it would be an 
unjust state of affairs, and the committee never had that in mind at 
all. 

Unfortunately that seems to have been the g-ttitude assumed by 
Mr. Marshall. I say it is unfortunate, because I think it is unfor- 
tunate. Personally I never saw Mr. Marshall but one time, but the 
evidence which I have heard about him leads me to understand 
that he was a man of ability and of high character and standing in 
his profession and as a citizen of the city and State of New York. 
And I was greatly surprised to learn of his attitude of hostility. 

I can assure this special committee that there was no desire on tbe 
part of any of the members of the subcommittee or of the Judiciary 
Committee of the House of Representatives to secure for Mr. Bu- 
chanan any evidence which would j'.dvise him of that which the Gov- 
ernment had possession of; merely to inquire — these, if I may 
reiterate, these were the two big thi: gs in my micd. 

When I think of all these things put in here about the Rae Tanzer 
case, which was a criminal case in New York City, and a lot of in- 
vestigations about Hebrew attorneys who had been charged by Mr. 
M-' rshf^ll with a conspiracy to conceal assets in bankruptcy cases, 
while there may have been some irregularities in those proceedings, 
I think they were not of the high character which should have allowed 
them to have them brought into the House of Representatives as a 
basis of a charge of impeachment of a public officer. That, if any- 
thin.g, they should have been considered by the superior of Mr. Marshall, 
the Attorney General of the United States, or by the President of the 
United States, as to whether or not they were not charges of impeach- 
ment. 

But there were charges of impeachment against him in this, that he, 
as district attorney, was, first, returning indictments in his jurisdic- 
tion against men- without evidence, and, second, that without evi- 
dence and solely because of that which Mr. Buchanan has said on the 
floor of the House, that he caused an indictment for conspiracy to be 
returned against Mr. Buchanan. Those two things, in my mind, 
were the controlling things then, and are now; I think they are the 
big things which the House wants to know — whether these things 



58 H. SNOWDEN MARSHALL. 

have been proven against Mr. Marshall upon the accusation of Mr. 
Buchanan. 

The other matters I am ready to report upon; they are included 
in what we had to investigate, and we of course will make reports 
according to the way we view them ; but these other two matters are 
the big things, and the things which the House is interested in, and 
the things I think we are responsible for in the consideration of the 
impeachment charges. 

Are there any other questions ? 

Mr. Lenroot. Has your committee now completed its examination 
of witnesses, or is it still proceeding ? 

Mr. Gard. No, sir; we heard the two witnesses on Wednesday, we 
heard witnesses on another line on Wednesday, a witness from Bloom- 
field, Pa., and a witness from New York, a man from the district 
attorney's office, and Mr. Walker appeared, and Mr. Buchanan has 
said to us that he has gone to Chicago and that he would return in a 
short time and that he would then advise us if he had further evidence. 

It seems to me, without violating any confidence, that the consid- 
eration of the evidence by this subcommittee is about concluded, 
unless Mr. Buchanan unexpectedly comes forward with more wit- 
nesses; the committee at this time has no other witness to examine, 
and is, I think, ready to make its report, practically. 

But the thing which appeared to me to be necessary was the entire 
disassociation of the actual proof of the charges from ithis alleged con- 
tempt, because I feel that it is not alone due to the House of Repre- 
sentatives, but it is due to Mr. Marshall, and I feel that I am broad 
enough to make such a report that despite this letter, if in my mind 
the truth of these charges of impeachment is not proven by the evi- 
dence produced by the impeaching man, Mr. Buchanan, for one, I 
shall have hesitancy in saying so, and I feel, therefore, that it is not 
alone a matter which affects the rights of the House, but affects these 
rights of Mr. Marshall, that these matters be considered independ- 
ently with regard to what we all ultimately accomplish, and that is the 
administration of justice on the floor of the House and in the office 
of the district attorney of the southern district of New York. 

Mr. Sterling. Does Mr. Marshall understand from the committee 
that he could be heard at any time in his own behalf, that he could 
have witnesses there ? 

Mr. Gard. I do not know that that matter was given to him in the 
shape of any writing. The only communication, as I said, that we had 
personally with Mr. Marshall was this, that when he came, and in 
response to our mquiry that he do come, we told him of these charges, 
and my recollection is that we told him that he was entirely welcome 
to be present at any time, either himself or by his attorney. This 
was entirely an executive session, as I have said to you. What he 
said, as Mr. Nelson has explained, when he showed him the records — 
we had them contained hi the record — said he had never read them; 
said he did not care anything about them. We asked him whether 
he wanted to read them. He said, "If you want me to rea.d them, 
send them down to my office." We later prevailed on him to take 
them witli him, and he did take them, and retained them a short time, 
and he returned them with a statement tliat what the committee had 
said that Mr. Buchanan had made the charge that these indictments 
were returned without evidence, was a creation in the minds of the 



H. SNOWDEN MARSHALL. 59 

committee; that his interpretation and construction of the charges 
warranted no such construction, and if, he said, the committee had 
assumed that construction based entirely upon the statement of Mr. 
Buchanan, that he was not guilty of the charge for which he had 
been indicted. 

We said to him that he could be present in person or by counsel, and 
ho rather vehen^ently protested that he did not know what the charges 
were; that he did not want to read them; that he did not want to have 
anything to do with any of the proceedings. 

That is wliat I referred to when I spoke of what seemed to me was 
the unfortunate attitude which Mr. Marshall had against this com- 
mittee when the committee was, if anythmg friendly to him. 

Mr. ISIooN. Is there anything further you wish to ask Mr. Card ? 

Mr. Gard. Mr. Nelson is here. 

STATEMEE-T OF EOF. JOHF M. NELSOF, A REPEESEJfTA- 
TIVE m COISTGIIESS FROM THE STATE OF WISCOHSIIT. 

]Mr. Nelson. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I 
suppose that Mr. Webb, our chairman, and Mr. Gard have gone over 
this matter, both facts and the law in the case, and I am sure I do 
not want to weary you. 

I simply desire to say that anything that Mr. Marshall has done 
has not influenced my attitude toward him at ail. The only reason 
why the committee, so far as I know, reported to the Subjudiciary 
Committee wp.s that it was so public, it was so far-reaching in its 
effect, it seemed to me that we could not ignore it ; it was our duty to 
report it to the Judiciary Committee, and this committee thought it 
was its duty to report it to the House. 

You see, the fundamental thing here is after all not anything per- 
sonal, but it goes right to the highest prerogatives of the people. 
Tliis impeachment, as I understand it, is the highest power of the 
people to preserve free government. It is the only way the people 
have of restraining encroachment of power, either in the executive or 
or in the judicial depp.rtments. 

I want to say to you gentlemen of this committee, if you have any 
thought tha,t this gentleman [Mr. Marshall] has not any power, you 
go over there and you -will be astonished, I believe — I know I wp.s — at 
the power of that office. He has 27 assistants in the most populous 
city of the land, using subpoenas and indictments, and conspiracy 
charges and other agencies of government in the way of secret serv- 
ice, in a manner that was simply overwhelming, reaching out to get 
common people, citizens and lawyers and ex-Members of Congress 
aiid Members of Congress — I do not want to go into the facts of the 
case because we have not determined that^but surely, outside of 
everything else, it has been a very interesting study to see the power 
of this office. 

^ow, that being a matter of high prerogative of the people, and the 
House havino; taken jurisdiction of it, we exercising judicial functions, 
there is no mistake about that, we were not there in a representative 
capacity, not there in an administrative capacity, and the courts 
have uniformly, you will notice when you read the precedents, held 
that we were exercising judicial functions; we were in a judicial ca- 
pacity; we were the grand inquisitors of the Nation, partly judicial, 




60 H. SNOWDEN MARSHALL. 

partly acting as grand jurors, and it was direct contempt of the 
committee. I perhaps will withdraw that; I mean withdraw it so 
far as the statement that it was contempt. I do not wish at all to 
suggest whether it was contempt or not. That is for this committee 
to say. I am here to answer the facts, and if you wish to have the 
benefit of the discussions or the information that we developed in 
the Judiciary Committee along what lines to look in the way of the 
judicial precedents and parhamentary practices. I have had occasion 
to study this thing from various angles, but so far as concluding as 
to the facts, whether the}^ constitute contempt or not, I would not 
suggest anything. 

If there Is any question you gentlemen wish to ask I should be very 
glad to have you ask it. 

Mr. Sterling. Mr. Chairman, I should Hke to ask Judge Nelson a 
question. 

Mr. Moon. You may ask it. 

Mr. Sterling. Just to bring out this thought before our com- 
mittee without intimating what conclusion the committee might 
reach as to whether there has been violation of the privilege of the 
House or not, for I have not reached any conclusion. 

But, say this committee should reach that conclusion, and reach the 
opinion that they should recommend to the House that Mr. Marshall 
be summoned before the House for breach of tliis privilege, as a ques- 
tion of policy or propriety, do you think that should be done prior to 
your committee reaching a conclusion as to whether they should prefer 
impeachment charges or not ? In other words, if the House should 
bring him up and attempt to deal with him for contempt before you 
make a report, will the country take that as tending to prejudice the 
Judiciary Committee against him before they make a report on the 
charges out of which this alleged contempt proceeding grew ? I want 
to get your idea and bring that out before the committee. 

Mr. Nelson. We have carefully considered that point, both in the 
subcommittee and in the full committee, and we have come to the con- 
clusion that it being a distinct, separate matter, a separate matter 
entirely, his attack upon the House, that we should not like to im- 
peach a man for that. It may possibly go in the case, I do not say. 

Mr. Crisp. It would certainly not be within your jurisdiction to 
take cognizance of that? 

Mr. Nelson. I should not think so. On that question we have not 
passed. But this is an offense, if it is an offense at all, against the 
House itself, the committee of the House, the individual Members — 
if you will investigate you will find that section 6 of Article I covers 
this, as well as physical assault in the Sims-Glover case, and it is also 
the question of the rights of witnesses. 

They were told they were rogues and rascals. It is a question also 
of the right of an impeaching Member of the House, who is in attend- 
ance upon a committee, who is said to be a criminal and a traitor, and 
all that — ^ these things are all involved. 

Now, we believe that this is a distinct matter; that it should not 
be confused with the other. Wo may find that he is not guilty of 
the impeachment charges, but we may also find that he is. We have 
not concluded. We are still investigating carefully. It seems to 
us that there should be no confusion; that this should be brought to 



H. SNOWDEN MARSHALL. 61 

the .attention of the House, and that it should settle this matter by 
itself, and then we go right on as if nothing further had occurred in 
a fair and impartial way to ascertain the other things to report; 
that it is not well to confuse the two. 

Mr. Crisp. I agree with you that it is an entirely separate and dis- 
tinct proposition, but my question was whether you thought you 
should make a report on this distinct proposition before you had 
made a report on your other distinct proposition. 

Mr. Nelson. We are unanimous, practically, now. We were 
unanimous in the subcommittee and also in the full committee that 
it ought to stand out distinctly. 

Mr. Gard. I think some of the things that Mr. Marshall has said, 
notably this part here where he says that he regarded a Member of 
Congress who would take money for an unlawful purpose from any 
foreign agent as a traitor, I think that is true. I would not put 
myself in a position, as a member of this subcommittee, to attempt 
to impede justice in any way, and that if this subcommittee or that 
if this special committee thinks there should be any deferring of your 
report until we can make our report, that is a matter entirely indif- 
ferent to me. The only thing in my mind is this, as Mr. Nelson has 
said, in an attack upon the House of Representatives, directly ad- 
dressed to a subcommittee, it is true, but relating to the conduct of 
the whole House, from the inception of these charges made against 
^Ii\ Marshall by Mr. Buchanan. That is, as I think, we all agree. 

Now there was some disagreement of opinion, I am frank to. say, 
but I think there is practicaQy unanimous expression in the entire 
Judiciary Committee now, that these are separate and independent 
charges; that the charge of contempt should not be associated with 
the charge of proven guilt on the impeachment charges, and I go so 
far as to say that this letter, while it is surely an impertinence and 
may be a contempt — I am not passing on the question of contempt — 
was not such that we could base a charge of impeachment on. I 
would no attempt to bring that before the committee. 

I simply want the committee to understand my own personal at- 
titude in this matter, that my attitude is not as appearing here to- 
day to inform you (as I have thought to inform you honestly and 
impartially), it is not any attempt to impede or even delay justice, 
because I believe, and I think every one who considers the matter 
honestly, likewise believes that if this charge, this indictment against 
Mr. Buchanan and Mr, Lamar and Von Rmtelin and others is re- 
turned, was returned after evidence sufhcient to indict, and it is a 
case which should be tried. I firmly believe the district attorney 
should try the case without being impeded or sought to be impeded by 
any action of Congress. That the administration of justice would 
necessarily demand (this is a serious case against Mr. Buchanan), 
and I would not laiowingly do anything to impede the proper pre- 
sentation of that case to the jury. 

Mr. Lenroot. This resolution, Mr. Gard, compels this committee to 
report not later than the 14th of April, 

Mr. Gard. Yes; I understand that. 

Mr. Lenroot. Was it the purpose of the committee in putting that 
in to secure action by Congress in this matter in advance of the other ? 

Mr. Gard. There was no such purpose. 



62 H. SNOWDEN MAKSHALL. 

Mr. Nelson. They can make the report and let it lie, but we simply 
followed a precedent. We were lunited to five days in the Glover- 
Sims case, and it seems to be desirable that these things should not 
drag. 

Mr. Crisp. I think if the committee desired longer than that, I am 
sure the House, on the request of our chairman, would wait longer. 

Mr. Moon. It seems to me that this committee, and the other com- 
mittee, are composed of sensible people. I do not see any reason 
why we should delay this matter any more than a court should delay 
a case on account of a motion pending in that case. 

Mr. Sterling. Is it your idea that we should give Mr. Marshall an 
opportunity to be heard before this committee ? 

Mr. Moon. I have not thought of that matter; I would think we 
are sitting somewhat as a grand jury in this matter. Let Mr. Mar- 
shall be heard before the House. 

Mr. Lenrcot. That goes again to the form of this resolution. This 
form of resolution seems to delegate the matter entirely to this com- 
mittee. 

Mr. Carlin. When you are through with the questions I should like 
to make a personal statement, not to go into the record. 

Mr. Sterling. What do you gentlemen thirik about that, if Mr. 
Marshall cares to be heard here ? 

IVIr. Nelson. So far as I am concerned, I shall have no objection at 
all. 

Mr. Carlin. Nor as far as I am concerned. 

Mr. Nelson. Here is the situation. I am absolutely conscious of 
honestly trying to discharge my duty, and in the exercise of that 
duty — in the way we are challenged, the motives of the House, upon 
faith I can show you the newspaper headings, all of them charging 
upon faith that the Congress and the Hou^e are trying to shield 
criminals, and all these things. 

Mr. Sterling. I do not think, Mr. Chairman, that the House 
expects us to report an ex parte matter here at all. The House will 
not want to hear evidence in a contempt case. The House will want 
us to hear all the evidence to be heard, I think, and make our report. 

Mr. Webb. We have no objection at all. 

Mr. Moon. Under the terms of the resolution we are to find if any 
of the privileges of the House have been violated; then to find 
whether that was contempt or not, and then determine the procedure. 
I tliii k those arc the three things we are obliged to do. I surely have 
no objection to hearing Mr. Marshall so far as I am concerned. 

Mr. Sterling. Suppose this were before a court; suppose it were 
for contempt that occurred outside of the court. Tiie court would 
have the right to refer the matter to a commissioner to take the testi- 
mony on the contempt, and of course the court would want to kiow all 
the facts of the case, both sides of it, before he would pass on the 
question of contempt. 

Mr. Gard. It was our thought that the facts were established 
by this letter. We associated also the additional letter which came 
to Mr. Webb, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, but we 
thought the facts, in so far as the actual charge of contempt at least 
were presented — i will not say estabUshed — but presented as con- 
tained in the letter. 



H. SlSrOWDEN MARSHALL. 63 

Mr. Sterling. I think that is true ; but suppose IVIr. Marshall came 
down here and uiidcrtook to justify some of tlie statements? Do 
you mean to say it would be contempt if he could justify them? 
Suppose he wanted that opportunity? 

Mr. Webb. I see no objection in the world to it. 

Mr. Nelson. Of course, it is customary to let him be heard before 
the bar of the House. I do not know of any precedent where they 
have had a prior hearing. 

Mr. Lenroot. This resolution seems to delegate that full power of 
investigation to this committee. 

Mr. Webb. I think, speaking for both the full committee 

Mr. Moon (interposing). This evidently contemplates a hearing 
before the House, of course, because we are to determine the power 
of the House to punish for contempt, and the procedure. 

Mr. Garner. In reading his letter the question of contempt, it 
seems to me, is embraced in this letter — whether or not the state- 
ments in this letter reflect on the House of Representatives through 
its delegated committee; and, if it does, that fact alone would be con- 
clusive. Mr. Marshall could not take anything back he said in his 
letter — in fact, he has confirmed it in the letter to the committee 
itself. Now, the question of the statements made in this letter — do 
they come within the purview of contempt of the House of Repre- 
sentatives? 

Mr. Webb, Mr. Carlin is present now. 

Mr. Moon. Wo slvAl be glad to hear Mr. Carlin. 

STATEMENT OF EOIS". CHARLES C. CARLIIT, A REPRESENTATIVE 
IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA. 

My. Carlin. Mr. Chf hmni and gentlemen, I shall be very glad to 
tell the committee what it wants to know, but I have no statement 
to nij'ke. 

I think this committee ought to be left free and unhampered by 
the other committee in relation to this matter. I only came because 
I understf nd that perhaps you might want to ask me questions. 

!Mr. Moon. You received the letter referred to in this resolution, 
did you, as the chrirman of the Subcommittee on the Judiciary? 

]Vtr. Carlin. Yes, sir; I did. 

Mr. Sterling. Did 3^ou see it in the newspaper before you got the 
orij;inrl letter? 

Mr. Carlin. It must have been published before I got it. These 
are the circumstf nccs under whi h I got it : I was to leave New York 
on the 3.f>0 tr* in. I was packing my valise at the hotel, probably 
within a few minutes of 3 o'clock. It may have been the 3.30 train; 
r mry be mistaken : s to the hour. 

At' a few minutes of throe I was called to the telephone and asked 
if I was Congressman CarUn. I said I was. The voice stated that 
Mr. Marshall would like to Imow when I was going to leave the city. 
I asked who I was talking to. He said he declined to toU me. I 
said, "It can not be that Mr. MarshaU has asked somebody to talk 
to me unwilhng to give his name." "Well," he said, "I will not 
give my name." I said, "I will be hanged if you will find out when 
I am going to leave the city," and I hung up the telephone. In a 



64 H. SNOWDEN MARSHALL. 

few moments I decided to verify the statement as to whether this 
gentleman was talking for Mr. Marshall, and I called up Mr. Mar- 
shall's office myself. I got his secretary. He said his name was 
Richards, I believe. I told him what happened over the telephone, 
and asked him if Mr. Marshall had tried to reach me in that way. 
He said he could not say; did not know anything about it; but he 
did know Mr. Marshall had a letter for me and wanted to communi- 
cate with me. I said, "If he does, I will wait here until I receive it." 

I hung up the phone, and in a few" minutes the phone rang and a 
representative of the New York World was on the other end of the 
wire and wanted to know what I had to say about Mr. Marshall's 
reply to me. I told him I had not received it. "Well," he said, 
"you will receive it." He went on to tell me what it contained. I 
said, "I have not received any letter and do not care to give you 
any statement." I told him that when I did receive the letter I 
should be very glad to make a statement, although I could not make 
it for the committee as they had separated. I hung up the phone. 
I had three or four other newspaper reporters, as soon as they could 
reach me, call up for interviews. I could not give them interviews 
because I had not received the letter. When the letter did arrive 
there were newspaper reporters v/aiting in the hall and in the lobby, 
and I think one had gotten into my room. 

Mr. Gard. How did you get the letter? 

Mr. Carlin. a messenger boy brought the letter, and as I went 
away leaving for the train — I am not sure whether I read the article 
in the paper, his letter to me in the paper, but I think I read on 
the train not only his letter but things I had said about it and things 
I had not said about it. 

In the last lino of his letter he informed me it would be given to the 
press. But it was an insolent way of communicating with me 
through a messenger or friend who was unwilling to give me his 
name, and I was unwilling to believe that Mr. Marshall would adopt 
that way of communicating with me. I am not sure now that ho 
did, but I tell you what happened to me. 

Mr. Moon. Is there anything further, gentlemen? 

Mr, Carlin. I have not anything further. 

(Thereupon, at 1.30 o'clock p. m., the committee adjourned until 
Monday, April 10, 1916, at 10 o'clock a. m.) 



Monday, April 10, 1916. 

The special committee this day met, Hon. John A. Moon (chair- 
man) presiding. 

The Chairman. Mr. Marshall, the special committee having under 
consideration the charges against you met last Friday and we took 
the testimony or heard the statements of Mr. Chairman Webb, of 
the Judiciary Committee, and Messrs. Carlin, Nelson, and Gard. 
Then the committee sent an invitation to you to be here to-day, 
which you telegraphed you would accept. In the meantime, we 
h-ive had prepared the statements made by those gentlemen with 
rcfcirence to the letter which you wrote to the subcommittee of the 
Judiciary Committee in New York. There is a copy of their state- 



H, SNOWDEN MARSHALL. 65 

merits. I take it that it is the sense of the committee that they are 
entirely wiUing for you to ask those witnesses any questions you 
desire. 

Ml". Lenroot. I think if Mr. Marshall desires that opportunity, 
it should be afforded him. 

Mr. Marshall. I should like to have an opportunity to read over 
these statements. 

Tlie Chairman. You can read over those statements and then the 
gentlemen will come back and you can ask them any questions that 
you desire. The committee is more than anxious to have the full 
facts on both sides. Mr. Marshall can make a statement now, if he 
desires, and if, after reading over the testimony, he desires to ask the 
Congressmen any questions, we will bring them before the committee 
for the pm'pose. 

Mr. Marshall. Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, that would be the best 
course. I have come here pursuant to your letter of April 7, 1916, 
which, I suppose, is a part of your record. I telegraphed at once 
that it would give me pleasure to come and appear before you. I pre- 
pared a statement which I have brought with me and which I should 
like to submit in writing. I must apologize for its form. I did not 
receive your letter until about 11 o'clock Saturday morning and I had 
rather a short time to get it in shape, but I suppose that it will be 
printed anyhow, and if I may do so, I will submit it. 

Mr. Sterling. As the chairman has stated, the members of the 
subcommittee and also Mr. Webb, the chairman of the Judiciary Com- 
mittee, made statements to this committee on Friday when you were 
not present, and you do not know what was said. Would you prefer 
to read their statements before you submit your statement to the com- 
mittee or make any further statement to the committee ? 

Mr. Marshall. I will do whatever the committee desires to have 
done in that regard. That might be a good suggestion. 

Mr. Sterling. It might be that after you have read the statements 
which those gentlemen made that they may affect your views with 
reference to the matter that is pending here. 

Mr. Marshall. That is possible. I will take any step you desire. 

Mr. Sterling. I presume the committee in that regard will do 
whatever you desire. 

The Chairman. Whatever is Mr. Marshall's preference. 

Mr. Lenroot. The committee will do whatever Mr. Marshall 
desires. 

Mr. Marshall. I have no choice, because I do not know what is in 
the statements. I will have to leave that to the committee. 

The Chairman. I should think that you would probably want to 
read the statements of the witnesses before you proceed s^ery far. 

Mr. Marshall. May I read the statements now ? 

The Chairman. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Crisp. As I understand the suggestion of Mr. Sterling, it is 
that Mr. Marshall be given an opportunity to read that evidence 
before he submits his statement. 

The Chairman. Mr. Marshall's statement will be withdrawn, as 
there is no reason for us to read it now. 

(Thereupon the committee took a recess until 1.30 o'clock p. m.) 

37214r— H. Kept. 544, 64-1 5 ; 



Q6 H. SNOWDEN MARSHALL. 

AFTER RECESS. 

At the expiration of the recess the committee resumed its session. 

STATEMENT OF ME. H. SNOWDEN MARSHALL, UNITED 
STATES ATTORNEY, NEW YORK, N. Y, 

The Chairman. Mr. Marshall, you may proceed with your state- 
ment. 

Mr. Marshall, I have had an opportunity to go over the minutes 
which you gave me this morning oi the former proceeding before the 
committee, and I desire to submit the statement that I offered this 
(nornmg and withheld pending the reading of these minutes. 

The Chairman. Do you want to submit your statement or read it? 

Mr. Marshall. No, sir; I will just submit it. It will be easier for 
you to read it than for me to read it to you. 

The Chairman. Suppose you read your statement and then make 
such other statement as you desire, and we will proceed in that way. 

Mr. Marshall. Just as you say, Mr. Chairman. [Reading:] 

To the Hon. John A. Moon, Chairman, and Select Committee appointed 

unde?' House resolution 193: 

Gentlemen.- I wish to respectfully submit for your consideration 
the following statement: 

I respectfully but most earnestly protest that I am not in contempt 
of this House, or of its committee. Undoubtedly the House has the 
power to consider the question whether a charge against some public 
officer shall develop into an impeachment of him by the House. In 
discharge of that function the House, or such committee as it may 
instruct has the fullest power to summon witnesses, call for the pro- 
duction of papers and require answers to the questions it may be 
fiecessary to put to the witnesses. With the exercise of these func- 
tions no one should interfere. 

Now I have not refused to appear before the committee or the 
subcommittee, nor have I advised any one so to do, or suggested to 
any one that he should avoid or evade service of subpoena. I have 
refused to answer no question, I have failed to produce no document 
And have not advised or suggested to any one else that he should so 
refuse or fail to produce — except that in compliance with express 
instructions of the Attorney General and in conformity with the well 
settled practice of the. Federal courts in the second circuit, I have 
instructed my assistants not to produce before the committee the 
original or any copy of the stenographic minutes of testimony taken 
by the grand jury, and not to testify as to any evidence which was 
Ueard by that body at any of its sessions. 

Nothing that I have done or said has in the slightest degree delayed, 
i^r embarrassed, or interfered with the conduct of the investigation 
above referred to by this honorable House or by its Judiciary Com- 
oaittee or by its subcommittee. 

For these reasons, therefore, I protest that I have been guilty of 
fio contempt of the House of Representatives. 

To understand the situation in this matter a preliminary statement 
of the facts should be made: 

The grand jury in the southern district of New York, impaneled in 
September, 1915, was continued from tei-m to term until December, 



H. SNOWDEN MAKSHALL, 67 

and toward the end of December handed down an indictment against 
Eintehn, Buchanan, Lamar, and others, charging them with a viola- 
tion of the Sherman law. 

Tliis grand jury summoned a large number of witnesses for the 
early part of December, and the fact that witnesses were being exam- 
ined, and that an investigation was being made into the activities of 
the Labors National Peace Council, of which Mr. Buchanan had been 
president, became public property. 

Shortly after this fact become known, and on December 14, 1915, 
Mr, Buchanan made a motion for my impeachment on six separate 
grounds, none of which contained any specifications, and all of which 
were stated in the most general terms. The most specific statement 
which he made was that I had violated the "eight-hour laws of the 
United States and of the State of New York." This proposed resolu- 
tion, on Mr. Buchanan's motion, was referred to the Judiciary Com- 
mittee, and I understand that Mr. Buchanan was called on by this 
committee a number of times for specifications, which he did not give. 

I regarded this motion made by Mr. Buchanan as a threat to me 
and intended to deter me from proceeding with the investigation 
which he then knew was in progress. I totally disregarded the threat 
and proceeded with the investigation. It was entirely clear to me 
that there was no reason on earth that would interest Mr. Buchanan, 
of Illinois, in the administration of the office of the district attorney 
in the southern district of New York excepting his personal interest 
in preventing a thorough investigation into his own conduct by the 
grand jury in this district. 

Thereafter, as above stated, the whole case was submitted to the 
grand jury for its vote, which resulted in the indictment of Mr. Bu- 
chanan on the 28th day of December, 1915. He appeared and 
pleaded not guilty to the indictment on January 5, 1916. 

On January 11, 1916, Mr. Buchanan offered a resolution amending 
his impeachment charges and introducing a resolution directing the 
Committee on the Judiciary to inquire into whether the action of thq 
House was requisite concerning my alleged misconduct. These im- 

J)eachment charges were very voluminous but wholly indefinite and 
acking in any specification that would enable anybody to find out 
what I was charged with doing. After some debate, this resolution 
was withdra%\Ti. 

On January 12, 1916, it seems that Mr. Buchanan moved again for 
my impeachment, setting forth a long list of charges, none of which, 
so far as I can make out, contain any specifications, and introduced 
a resolution that the Committee on the Judiciary be directed to in- 
quire into the charges. 

I have said that Mr. Buchanan's resolution contained charges 
against me. I think it would be more proper to say that he filed a 
few piiges of abuse which could not by the greatest stretch of the 
imagination be called charges. After he had been mdicted and called 
on to plead, he increased the volume of his abuse considerably, but 
I do not think that anyone who reads the charges will be able to 
understand any particular act of wrongdoing with which I was 
charged. 

When Mr. Buchanan presented his final so-caUed resolutions of 
impeachment in the House on January 12, 1916, there was an 
extended debate in which a number of the Members took part. 



68 H. SNOWDEN MARSHALL. 

Several Members asked for some specification of the charges, and a 
number of them suggested that some facts ought to be made known 
on whi-^h a charge should be based. I have examined the Congres- 
sional Record of January 12, 1916, and do not find that Mr. Buchanan 
answered any of those questions. On the contrary, his statement 
wr.s that he hrd not the resources to secure information which he 
honestly and sincerely believed could be obtained if authority was 
given. The outcome of the debate accordingly was that the indicted 
Congressman secured a reference of a case in regard to which he 
offered no evidence except what he described as his "honest and 
sincere belief," f nd this ''honest and sincere belief," which was not 
subjected to any very severe cross-examination, set in motion the 
proceedings whiih have since followed. 

Thereafter, and on January 27, an additional resolution was sub- 
mitted by the chairman of the Judiciary Committee empowering the 
Committee on the Judiciary or any subcommittee which they might 
appoint to subpoena witnesses, employ stenographers, and incur any 
expense necessary to investigate the question involved in the resolu- 
tion of Mr. Buchanan. The questions involved were whether or not 
there was any legal evidence that could be adduced to support his 
"honest and sincere belief" that the district attorney who had hap- 
pened to be in office in the district where he had been indicted was 
guilty of some 42 charges of misconduct. Up to this date, as far as I 
am advised, no Member of Congress had had placed before him any 
fact except the ''honest and sincere belief" of their indicted fellow 
Member. 

As these events progressed I paid little attention to them. I have 
been able to state the facts accurately, because I have obtained for the 
purposes of this statement the copies of the Congressional Record in 
which the events are narrated. The whole thing, when it first oc- 
curred, seemed to me to be a desperate effort to postpone the trial of 
Mr. Buchanan by putting pressure on the district attorney. 

I proceeded with the preparation of the trial of the case of Mr. 
Buchanan and from time to time I heard that witnesses were being 
subpoenaed before the Judiciary Committee, or, perhaps, the sub- 
committee in charge of this matter, I don't remember which. The 
subcommittee or the committee was, according to my information, 
during this period, holding so-called secret sessions. I was informed 
and believeel that everybody who appeared before the said committee 
came back and stated with some surprise that in the secret sessions 
Mr. Buchanan was always present and that there was usually present 
at the secret sessions of the committee a lawyer of this city of the 
name of David Slade, who is at present under indictment in this 
district and also under charges of having altered a filed bill of excep- 
tions after the trial judge had certified to and signed it, preferred 
against him to the bar association by the United States district 
judges in this district. This news surprised me considerably, but I 
paid very little attention to the whole occurrence, as I never took it 
very seriously except as a confirmation of the testimony which had 
convinced me that the indictment of Mr. Buchanan was justified. 

Shortly before the week beginning February 27, I learned to my 
surprise that the committee was coming to New York, and one of 
my assistants stated to me that he had received a telephone message 
from one of the members of the grand jury which had indicted Mr. 



H. SNOWDEN" MAESHALL. 69 

Buchanan, and that this member of the grand jury had stated that 
he had been subpoenaed to appear before the subcommittee of the 
Judiciary Committee in New York on Monday, February 28. My 
assistant further stated to me that this member of the grand jury 
had stated that as he understood his duty, he was not at hberty to 
tell the subcommittee anything which had transpired in the grand 
jury room, and asked for information. My assistant told me that 
he requested the juror to await further advices and reported the 
event to me. 

On Saturday, February 26, I was in Washmgton and told the 
Attorney General of this occurrence, and asked what he thought 
should be done about the matter. I explained to him that if this 
subcommittee, in its supposed investigation into my conduct, was 
really going to attempt to examine the grand jurors, some step should 
be taken to prevent such a performance on theu' part. He told me 
that he would look into the matter, and on Sunday morning, before 
I left Washington, he telephoned me and explained to me that Mr. 
Carlin, the chairman of the subcommittee, had promised him that 
no effort would be made by the subcommittee while in New York to 
intrude into the secrets of the grand jury room. 

Relying on the promise which, as I was thus informed, Mr. Carlin 
had made to the Attorney General, I did not taJce the steps which, I should 
otherwise have taJcen to prevent the subcommittee from talcing tlie course 
of conduct which they afterwards saw fit to take. 

On Monday, February 28, I was informed that the subcommittee 
had arrived in New York and had started public hearings, and that 
they were examining members of the grand jury which had indicted 
Mr. Buchanan. I am not to be charged with neglect in failing to 
prevent this misconduct on the part of the subcommittee, because I 
relied on the explicit promise which, as I had been informed, Mr. 
Carlin had made to the Attorney General that such an examination 
of the grand jurors would not be made. 

I was greatly amazed at this first action of the subcommittee. I 
ascertained that they had thrown their hearings open to the public, 
and I was called on by a number of newspaper reporters to find out 
whether any charges had been served on me or whether I was under 
any charges. I told the newspaper reporters that so far as I knew 
I was not under any charges, that no charges had been served on 
me, and that I knew of no charges except that I had read of a reso- 
lution which Mr. Buchanan had introduced in the House, in which he 
made a number of unpleasant statements about me. 

From Monday, February 28, to the end of that week the subcom- 
mittee continued its hearino;s. The proceedings of the subcommittee, 
with the exception of so-called executive sessions, have been printed, 
and what occurred before the committee appears in the printed record. 

From the beginning of these proceedings to the end the subcom- 
mittee omitted no opportunity to act in what seemed to me and 
others an insulting manner to me and to my assistants. 

On the afternoon of Monday, February 28, while I was busy in my 
office, the subcommittee sent the Sergeant at Arms of the House to 
bring me before the subcommittee. I asked to be excused, and asked 
for some notice if the subcommittee wished to see me, but the Sergeant 
at Arms was insistent, and in order to avoid a scene I went with him 
before the subcommittee. I was not given the ordinary subpcena 



70 H, SNOWDEN MAESHALL. 

which was given to other witnesses, but the Sergeant at Arms insisted 
on my immediate appearance before the said subcommittee, and I 
accordingly appeared. 

When I appeared before the subcommittee I was told that the sub- 
committee desired to see the minutes of the grand jury in the Buchanan 
case, and also the minutes in the case of one Rae Tanzer and the 
Slades. I was told that Mr. Buchanan had stated that he was not 
guilty of the charge of which the grand jury had indicted him, and 
therefore he had charged me with having indicted him without evi- 
dence. I was told that it was also stated that in the Rae Tanzer case 
and in the Slade case there was no evidence to justify an indictment, 
and that the subcommittee desired to examine the grand jury minutes 
in those cases to ascertain whether the charge was true that the Slades 
and Rae Tanzer had been indicted without evidence. I was asked if 
I knew about the charges against me, and replied that I did not. I 
did not understand that the subcommittee in speaking of "charges" 
referred to the speech which Mr. Buchanan had made in the House of 
Representatives on Wednesday, January 12, 1916, but supposed that 
they must have reference to some definite or specific charges which I 
thought he might have subsequently made. I was then handed a 
copy of the Congressional Record of the date last named, which I car- 
ried away with me. 

I stated to the subcommittee that they could satisfy themselves 
completely as to whether there w<is evidence upon which Mr. 
Buchanan should be indicted by asking him one question, namely, 
where the money came from which financed the activity of Labors 
National Peace Council, of which he had been president; and how 
that money h:id been spent. I said that if they would require an 
answer to that question, they need not ask me any questions as to 
what the evidence was against Mr. Buchanan. The chairman of the 
subcommittee stated to me that Mr. Buchanan had denied that there 
was any money used by the Labors National Peace Council except 
a couple of thousand dollars, and that Mr. Buchanan had stated that 
he (Buchanan) had personally paid his own expenses in connection 
with the matter. I asked when Mr. Buchanan had made that state- 
ment, and Mr. Carlin replied that he hrd made it in a public speech. 

I told the committee that I would prefer not to answer their request 
for the grand jury minutes until I had communicated with the 
Attorney General, and told them that I had had a talk on the subject 
with the Attorney General. The chairman of the subcommittee told 
me that he hoped that neither the Attorney General nor I would 
press an objection to their seeing the minutes of the grand jury in 
those cases, and said that the minutes, if they should be turned over 
to them, would be examined in confidence by the subcommittee, so 
that they (the subcommittee) could determine whether in their 
opinion there was evidence sufficient to indict the persons who had 
been indicted. 

In the course of this interview the chairman of the subcommittee 
explained to me that I had not been invited to appear before the sub- 
committee and had not asked for leave to appear, to which statement 
I assented, and asked them also to note that my appearance on the 
occasion in question was at their request and not my own, to which 
the subcommittee assented. 



i 



H. SNOWDEN MARSHALL. 71 

At tlu' time whcni 1 ap])carc(l before^ tho subcomniiltee they luid 
established themselves in quarters in tli(^ Federal building in the city 
of Xi'W York and h:ul accom])anying them Mr. Buchanan, althougH, 
so far as I know, Mr. Buchanan was not present at the executive 
session to which I was summoned. I was informed also that in 
practically all then- hearings they were attended by David Slade and 
also ))y a Mr. Walsh, who, tis 1 am informed, was counsel for Mr. 
Buchanan. I observe from the printed minutes of the subcommittee 
that Mr. Walsh is described as counsel for the subconmiittee, and in 
the minutes he stated that he was counsel for Mr. Buchanan. 

On Wednesday, March 1, I advised the subcommittee in a letter 
which I then caused to be delivered to them that I would respectfully 
decline to give them the grand jury minutes which they had asked mc 
to produce. In this letter I quoted a telegram of instructions to me 
from the Attorney General, in which he stated that I must respect- 
fully decline to produce these minutes, and stated that Federal grand 
juries are part of the machinery of the Federal courts and by long- 
established practice the Department of Justice and district attorneys 
are bound not to disclose testimony and other proceedings had before 
grand juries except upon order of court. In this telegram the Attor- 
ney General stated further that in the present case both the Depart- 
ment of Justice and the State Department were of opinion that a dis- 
closure of the proceedings before the grand jury would be prejudicial 
to the public mterests. 

In the letter m which I transmitted this telegram to the subcom- 
mittee I stated that I was personally in entire accord with the views 
of the Attorney General, and stated further that I was in possession 
of the minutes for which they had asked, and would appear before 
the subcommittee and make a record of my refusal to produce the 
minutes so that the subcommittee could take such action in regard 
to the matter as they might be advised, in case they wished to test 
their right to examine these mmutes of the grand jury. 

In my letter to the chairman of the subcommittee, dated March 4, 
1916, I have summarized my views of the conduct of the subcom- 
mittee during their visit in New York. There was no assistant of 
mine called before them who was not subjected to indignity and 
insult. For instance, Mr. Roger Wood, who was engaged in the trial 
of an important case, was called before the subcommittee after he 
had finished his speech to the jury and while the jury in his case was 
out and subjected to a violent and abusive cross-examination by the 
subcommittee. I was told by a reporter connected with the New 
York Tribune that if I desired testimony as to the general manner 
of the subcommittee I could call on him, as he had just heard the 
examination of Mr. Wood. He said that he had never heard a 
"pimp" in a white-slave case subjected to the kind of treatment 
that Mr. Wood had to submit to at the hands of the subcommittee. 

This proceeding, which was ostensibly an investigation of the con- 
duct of an officer of the Department of Justice, was so conducted that 
no one was notified, summoned, or assigned to represent such officer. 
No counsel was present to object to any question, whether propounded 
by a member of the subcommittee or by counsel for Mr. Buchanan; 
no one was present to call upon the committee to repress the ex- 
uberance of any witness who might wander off into hearsay or con- 



72 H. SNOWDEN MARSHALL. 

jecture. The consequence was that not infrequently when a question 
was put to a witness the result was what happens when a stone is 
thrown into certain pools in the Yellowstone Park — immediately 
there spouts up a geyser which scatters liquid mud over a wide area, 
Naturally in a public hearing so conducted the representatives of 
the press gather out of the spray whatever may be most derogatory 
to the officer investigated, since that only makes an interestmg story 
for the readers of their papers. 

One of the main purposes of the subcommittee seemed to be to 
indicate to the public that I was trying to conceal facts on account of 
my fear of consequences personal to myself. 

After they received my letter in which I refused to produce the 
grand jury minutes and stated that I was under instructions not to 
do so, the subcommittee called one of my assistants who had been 
in charge of the grand jury investigation against Mr. Buchanan, 
and demanded of him the production of the grand jury minutes in 
the Buchanan case. He respectfully refused to produce the minutes 
and they thereupon asked him whether his refusal was due to orders 
which he had received from me. They never disclosed publicly the 
fact that they then well knew that I was under orders not to give 
them the minutes, but they deliberately endeavored to create a 
public impression that I was instructing my assistant to withhold 
the minutes from them for my own protection. 

In the course of the examination of a witness one of the members 
of the subcommittee asked him how much money he had paid to 
one of my assistants in connection with a certain case, and how much 
money he expected to pay him. The astonished witness stated that 
he had paid no money and expected to pay none. One of the news- 
paper men asked this member of the subcommittee if he had any 
foundation for this question, and the member said that he had no 
foundation and that it was merely a "fishing question." 

It is not an unreasonable presumption that the object of the ques- 
tion was to have the newspapers the following day carry headlines 
such as "Hint of bribery in the district attorney's office," etc. 

I might multiply instances of this sort indefinitely. The forms of 
questions asked by the different members of the subcommittee were 
as insulting to me and to my assistants as was the testimony of cer- 
tain individuals who at one time or another had found themselves 
on the windy side of the criminal law whom they caUed before them. 

Toward the end of their sojourn in New York the subcommittee 
called before them a newspaper reporter and interrogated him as to 
a statement which had appeared in his paper. They asked him 
whether the statement was based on information which he had re- 
ceived from me. They had never done me the honor of asking me 
whether I had given the newspaper reporter the information or not. 
The newspaper reporter declined to answer their questions and they 
attempted to commit him to jail. This was in line with the efforts 
which they had made to make it publicly appear that I was endeav- 
oring to conceal the truth. 

It was after this last performance on the part of the subcommittee 
that I wrote to them my letter of March 4, 1916, which is a part of 
the record which is now imder consideration. 

As to the propriety of my letter to Mr, Carlin of March 4, 1916, 
I have considered various arguments that have been suggested to 



H. SNOWDEN MARSHALL. 73 

me. It has been said that the letter was disrespectful to the House 
of Representatives; it has been said that the subcommittee were 
sitting in a judicial capacity, and that I had no right to impugn their 
motives but was bound to wait until the end of their deliberations 
and then present such charges as I thought should be presented 
against the subcommittee; it has been said that the letter indicated 
a high state of indignation and was an imprudent and impolitic 
letter to wi-ite. 

I have devoted considerable thought to the question of whether 
this subcommittee was sitting in a judicial capacity, because I would 
willingly agree that if such were the case it would have been im- 
proper for me to make the comments on their conduct which I made 
in my letter. I am convinced that they were not sitting in a judicial 
capacity in any sense of the word. 

The House of Representatives has the right to investigate any 
public officer; it has the right to determine whether there are charges 
against that officer which should be submitted for determination to 
the court which is established by the Constitution, namely, the Senate. 
The House of Representatives has no more right to sit in judgment on 
a public officer than the public officer has to sit in judgment on the 
House of Representatives. The position of the investigating sub- 
committee of the House of Representatives toward a pubhc officer is 
the same as that of a district attorney in regard to cases presented to 
him for investigation. It is the duty of the district attorney to inves- 
tigate any case, and, if he is satisfied that a proper case is made out, to 
present the case to a court for trial. Precisely the same duty rests 
upon an investigating committee of the House of Representatives 
when it investigates the conduct of a pubhc officer. 

The mode of investigation in such cases is settled by ordinary rules 
of decency. A district attorney, until he is satisfied that a case is 
made out which should be presented to a court, is bound to protect the 
person under investigation from any undue pubUcity and scandal. 
If the district attorney starts out without knowing whether an in- 
dictment is going to be found or not and institutes a campaign of 
pubhc newspaper defamation against the person under investigation, 
I have never heard it claimed that the object of such an attack is not 
entitled to answer the attack in the newspapers. 

If an investigating congressional subcommittee, before it has ascer- 
tained whether charges are to be presented to the Senate, chooses to 
attack the officer under investigation in the jjublic press and to make 
sneering and objectionable statements against him, and to heap every 
imaginable insult on him and his assistants, I kno\y of no reason why 
the public officer should not be entitled to answer the attack m the 
forum selected by the subcommittee, and know of no reason why the 
attack should not be answered at the time when it is made. 

In the case which I am now discussing the situation was most 
remarkable. The subcommittee had very frankly placed itself under 
the entire domination of an indicted Congressman. They permitted 
him to name their counsel, and then the subcommittee and the 
worthy counsel vied with each other in the selection of language 
toward my assistants and myself which I wiU not undertake to 
characterize. Any fair-minded man who reads the whole rtjcord can 
select the appropriate adjectives. 



74 H. SNOWDEN MARSHALL. 

1 ain hardly going too far when I say that the pubhc impression 
created by the subcommittee was that they had themselves appointed 
what may be called a sub-subcommittee, consisting of Messrs. 
Buchanan, Slade, and Walsh, and that this sub-subcommittee prac- 
tically controlled the witnesses to be called and the methods to be 
used in examination. 

I have had cases by the score where complaints have been made to 
me by persons whom I knew to have interested motives in making 
the complaints, which I have fully and carefully investigated. Doz- 
ens of such investigations have resulted in the conclusion that the 
case did not warrant prosecution. The fact that the investigation 
was under way has been practically unloiown in the community, and 
I have not permitted the persons making the complaints to exploit 
their charges publicly until I knew that the cases were cases of real 
merit, in which the grand jury approved of an indictment. 

If a district attorney should adopt the methods which were 
adopted by the subcommittee in this city, every man against whom 
an enemy saw fit to make a charge would be ruined, whether he 
should be indicted or not. 

It has been said to me by half a dozen people that the subcom- 
mittee was endeavoring to give Mr. Buchanan a free rein, so that he 
could have no complaint about the nature and scope of the investi- 
gation. It has been suggested in supposed palliation for the meth- 
ods of the subcommittee that Mr. Buchanan and his confreres, 
Messrs. Slade and Walsh, were allowed to do as they pleased, so that 
they could not thereafter criticize the subcommittee. To me this 
seems no palliation or excuse. 

If the subcommittee abnegated their own powers and turned them- 
selves over to be used by a couple of indicted men and a lawyer of 
one of them, then the motives of Mr. Buchanan became the motives 
of the subcommittee. I am convinced that neither Mr. Buchanan 
nor any of the persons making charges against me ever had the 
faintest notion that the charges were sustainable. Mr. Buchanan 
wished to drive me away from prosecuting him and his colleagues. 
The Slades wished to put an end to the indictment pending in this 
district against them. If this aggregation of indicted men found a 
subcommittee of the House of Representatives who were willing to 
turn over the whole machinery of what was described as an "inves- 
tigation" to the purposes of the defense of United States i\ Buchanan 
et al., and United States v. Slade, then the characterization of such 
a proceeding may, I think, be safely left to public opinion. The 
excuse that is made for the misconduct of the subcommittee is itself 
a damning indictment of their performances. 

I had no misunderstanding about what was intended nor what was 
going on. The idea of the Buchanan-Slade combination was to 
destroy the usefulness of my office and to impede the cases pending 
against themselves. I find it difficult to escape the conviction that 
the subcommittee lent itself to their purposes and joined in their 
efforts to publicly malign and slander and defame myself and every 
one of my assistants who had had charge of any part of the prosecu- 
tions in which Mr. Buchanan and the Slades were interested. 

I thought at the time that I wrote my letter, and I think now, 
that it was my duty publicly and immediately to answer in the press 
the public and scandalous attack which had been made on me and 



H. SNOWDEN MAESHALL. 75 

my assistants through the medium of this so-called "investigating 
committee." 

I do not deny that my letter of March 4, 1916, was written lohile I was 
in a state of intense and violent indignation at the treatment to which I 
and my assistants had been subjected. I have thought it over in cooler 
moments since ivriting it, and I find in it nothing to regret and nothing 
to retract. There is not a word, in it which is not true. Under the same 
circumstances I should write the same letter again, and it is my honest 
o'pinion that any investigation hy Congress should he rather into the 
actions of the subcommittee which sought to bring public disgrace wpon 
my assistants and myself than into my oivn resentment of their methods. 

This whole case is a novel and extraordinary one. There have 
been Members of Congress who have had to face the criminal courts, 
but there was never one before who resorted to defense by impeach- 
ment. I am not the only district attorney whose duty may require 
him to present to a grand jury charges against a Member of the 
House of Representatives. Mr. Buchanan is not the first Member 
of the House of Representatives who has violated the Federal law, 
and there may be other Members of that House who will find them- 
selves in Mr. Buchanan's predicament. 

I wish to present flatly and clearly to your attention the sinister 
and equivocal situation which is presentecl in this case. Defense by 
impeachment seems to be a novel one and one which is available 
only to a Congressman and to no other violator of the law. All that 
the indicted Congressman has to do, if the present precedent is to be 
sustained, is to rise in his seat and say that he ''honestly and sin- 
cerely believes" that the district attorney in charge of his prosecu- 
tion is guilty of every crime on the statute book; the indicted Con- 
gressman is not to be called upon for any specification beyond a state- 
ment from himself that he ''honestly and sincerely believes" in the 
guilt of the prosecuting attorney. Of the indicted Congressman is 
willing to make such a general statement, and if the precedent in this 
case is to be followed hereafter, the path of a district attorney in 
whose district a Congressman is indicted is to be made a very thorny 
one. The "honest and sincere belief" of the indicted Congressman 
is to result in an expedition of fellow Congressmen to the district 
where the indictment is found, and all of the offscourings of the 
criminal courts where the district attorney has practiced are to be 
drawn together, not to substantiate charges agamst the district at- 
torney, but to find out whether any charges can be drummed up. 

Defense by impeachment, as I have said, is a novel defense. It is my 
unfortunate lot to take part in the first case of this character. At what- 
ever discomfort to myself, it is my intention to see this case to the erid. 
Surely the House of Representatxves does not contemplate establishing 
the precedent that violators of the criminal law, if they happen to be Mem- 
bers, will find in it a'' White Friars'' or "Alsatia" whicJi will be their 
sanctuary against prosecutors who seelc to apply that law. 

Unless the proposition which it is now sought to make a precedent 
be definitely and forever repudiated by the House of Representa- 
tives, I do not believe that there will be many prosecuting officers 
found who will have the temerity to perform their sworn duty and 
present an indictment against a Member of the House of Representa- 
tives. The tremendous discomforts for a district attorney which are 



76 H. SNOWDEN MARSHALL. 

involved in this new defense by impeachment are a strong deterring 
influence to the prosecution of Federal crimes committed by any 
Member of the House of Representatives. 

In the case in which we are now interested there is an added ele- 
ment. If a district attorney objects to the abuse and villification 
which he is to receive from a congressional committee when he per- 
forms his duty and if he protests with indignation against his treat- 
ment, he is to be hauled before the House lor contempt. 

Let me add to this a feature of the case to which I first adverted: 
An ordinary defendant who has not the advantage of belonging to 
the House of Representatives can not secure the minutes of the 
grand jury which indicted him except upon the order of the court. 
Under the novel practice which is now proposed a Member of the 
House of Representives who is indicted can, on the mere assertion of 
his innocence and after making an abusive speech about the district 
attorney who indicted him, have a committee appointed of which he 
is practically ex officio a member to examine the minutes of the grand 
jury and ascertain whether in the opinion of that committee the 
Member of Congress should have been indicted. 

I have always realized that the extraordinary attack which the 
subcommittee made upon me and my office was not directed against 
me personally. I had the advantage of a slight acquaintance with 
one of the members of the subcommittee and did not loiow^ the others 
at all, and, so far as I know, there was no personal animus in the mat- 
ter whatever. What has been done therefore raises a matter of 
principle vastly more important to the administration of justice in 
this country than any personal interest which I or anybody else can 
have in it. It must Be determined before this proceeding is over 
whether a district attorney shall fear for his official life when he does 
his duty and presents charges against a Congressman, or whether the 
House of Representatives shall finally resolve to let justice take its 
course when one of their Members comes in conflict with the criminal 
law of the United States. 

Respectfully submitted. 

H. Snowden Marshall. 

April 10, 1916. 

Mr. Marshall. I wish to make a statement, Mr. Chairman, in 
regard to my former letter of March 4, which I wrote, and which you 
are now investigating. There have been statements made that it was 
intended to reflect on the whole House of Representatives or on the 
whole Judiciary Committee. Those statements, as I have explained 
in the letter to Mr. Webb, which is a part of the record, are unfounded, 
and I wish to say in regard to this statement that the same letter 
which I wrote to Mr. Webb applies to it. You could take a distorted 
sentence out of the statement and draw the inference that it was 
intended as a reflection on the House of Representatives, but it is 
nothing of the kind. It is my statement of my view about Mr. 
Buchanan and the subcommittee and the proceedings of the sub- 
committee in the city of New York. If anybody has any doubt 
about that, I should like to make it as clear as I possibly can. I feel 
perfectly confident that the conclusion that Congress will come to 
about this whole matter will be a correct and just one. I have a 
high respect for the House of Representatives, and do not thin]?: it 



H. SNOWDEN MARSHALL. 77 

all inconsistent with that high respect to criticize the conduct of some 
Members of the House, as I have done in this case. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further, Mr. Marshall? 

Ml-. Marshall. I have looked over this testimony which you gave 
me. I have only had about an hour to do it, because I have had to 
take up an urgent matter. I would be very much obliged to the com- 
mittee if they would permit me to take it away and to send you a state- 
ment about some inaccuracies which I think are in this record. 

The Chairman. Statements in the record ? 

Mr. Marshall. Yes, sir. I personally do not know about them, 
but in regard to which I think erroneous statements have been made. 
I could not do that to-day; but I can probably mail you by to-morrow 
afternoon or the day after a statement. 

The Chairman. We have to report in a few days. 

Mr. Marshall. I will have to forego any comments on it unless I 
can have the time. 

Mr. Garner. He could probably send it back by to-morrow. 

The Chairman. We can bring those gentlemen here and give you 
an opportunity to cross-examine them ? 

Mr. Marshall. They are speaking of things that I do not person- 
ally know about. 

Mr. Sterling. Have you read the evidence taken before the sub- 
committee ? 

Mr. Marshall. I have. 

Mr. Sterling. Could you indicate to this committee some of the 
things of which you complain ? 

Mr. Marshall. Yes; I could. I am not prepared to do it in 
detail. I will give you one or two of them. 

The Chairman. Before you proceed, I want to ask you one or two 
questions. You wrote the letter, I understand from your statement, 
of March 4, 1916, addressed to Mr. Carlin, chairman of the sub- 
committee in New York ? 

Mr. Marshall. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You also wrote the letter to Mr. Webb, chairman 
of the committee, on March 10, 1916? 

Mr. Marshall. I do not remember the date. I only wrote him 
one letter, and that is right, I have not any doubt. 

Answering your question, if you will turn to page 253, you will 
find one of the things which I have alluded to as being wrong. There 
was a witness on the stand by the name of Anderson, and if you will 
look at the middle of the page, you will see the question by Mr. Gard: 

How much did you pay Mr. Herslien^tein for his se'v"ces? 

Mr. Hershenstein is an assistant of mine who was conducting a 
pubhc case in which this witness was interested. You will see that 
Mr. Anderson replies in astonisliment : 

What did I what? 

Mr. Gard. ^\ hat did you pay Hershenstein for his services. 

I suppose there must have been an answer beyond that . 

Mr. Anderson. Up to the present I have not offered him any pay. 
Mr. Gard. That is interesting. How much do you intend to offer him? 
Mr. Anderson. That 1 intend to offer Mr. Hershenstein? 

Mr. Gard. You said ''Up to the present I have not offered him any pay." How 
much do you intend to offer him? 



78 H. SNOWDEN MARSHALL. 

Mr. Anderson. I do not intend to offer Mr. Hershenstein anything. He has not 
asked me for a thing. 

Mr. Gard. We are glad to know that. You said up to the present time you had not 
offered him anything. 

Mr. Anderson. Did I state that? Well, I do not intend to offer him. He has not 
made any request for a cent from me. 

Let me add something that I know by hearsay about the sugges- 
tion that my assistant was to be paid money in regard to a public 
case. Right after that — I get this by liearsay, but I can produce the 
witness, ii needed — one of the newspaper men went to Mr. Gard and 
said '' Did you have any foundation for that question?" And he said 
'*No; it was just fishing." The following day Mr. Gard sent for the 
reporter of the Herald, as I am told, and said '' Why don't you people 
on the newspapers treat us more fairly in New York?" The Herald 
man said ''You want a frank answer to that question?" Mi*. Gard 
said he did. He said, "Well, I understand, Mr. Gaid, that you are a 
lawyer. You remember when I asked you about that question 
yesterday when you intimated that Mr. Marshall's assistant had been 
bribed and you told me that you had no foundation at all for that 
question, if a lawyer in any court that I know anything about should 
make an intimation of that sort the court would certainly reprove 
him and might disprove him. As long as you continue to run your 
investigation along lines like that the newspapers are likely to con- 
tinue with you as they have." That is one thing. 

The Chairman. Tliat was hearsay ? 

Mr. Marshall. It was told to me and I believe it. 

Mr. Sterling. Mr. Anderson was connected with the Bard and 
Keen case — was not that the name ? 

Mr. Marshall. There were two men. Keen and Bard. 

Mr. Sterling. Tliat is right. Well, one of your assistants did 
represent one of those film companies in a civil capacity ? 

Mr. Marshall. He represented none of the film companies. 

Mr. Sterling. He represented the Colorado Film Co. ? 

Mr. Marshall. Tlie company which had a claim against Keen 
and Bard, back in November. The film companies that made the 
complaint against Bard and Keen were California companies, of 
which Mr. Anderson was the representative. 

Mr. Sterling. Mr. Smith was there representing the Colorado 
company or the Pike's Peak Co. Mr. A. M. or A. D. Smith, in a 
civil capacity? 

Mr. Marshall. That was back in November. I will tell you 
exactly what occurred, if you wi\l allow me. 

Mr. Sterling. Certainly. 

Mr. Marshall. There was a complaint against Bard and Keen for 
using the mails for a scheme to defraud. The complaint was made, 
as I recollect by Mr. Anderson, who represented some of their affiliated 
film producers in Cafifornia. On Mi*. Anderson's complaint Bard and 
Keen were arrested. They were represented by Mr. Henry Wise. He 
came to me and told me that they claimed that Mi\ Rodger Wood 
had come to them in the autumn and had represented certain people 
who had civil claims against them. I immediately looked into it 
and found that the complaint was an entirely difi^erent matter and 
that the complaint from Anderson was an entirely different matter 
from the civil case in which Mr. Wood had been interested, but I said, 
inasmuch as he was one of my assistants, under all the circumtsances. 



H. SNOWDEN MAESHALL. 79 

I would like to deal with the ciiso with the greatest care; and I told 
Mr. Wise that I should like liim to agree with me on some lawyer 
that he and I both knew and both respected, who could confer with 
me and decide whether it was or was not a proper ground of complaint 
under section 215 of the United States Criminal Code, the mail-fraud 
statute. Mr. Wise suggested that I confer with Mr. WilUam L. 
Wemple, formerly assistant attorney. Mr. Wemple and I came to 
the conclusion that while there miglit be a case for the civil courts, 
the case was a pretty doubtful one under the mail-fraud statute for 
various reasons. I do not suppose that you care to be burdened with 
them. 

Mr. Sterling. Then, Mr. Wood did represent somebody who had a 
claim against Bard and Keen? 

^Ir. IVIarshall. Yes, sir; I think in October or November. 

Mr. Sterling. And he acted as attorney in that capacity? ' 

I have read this record over carefully, except the last 25 pages 
which I have not yet been able to read. As soon as it developed 
that there would probably be criminal proceedings, Mr. Wood with- 
drew from that representation. 

Mr. Marshall. I think he withdrew long before that. 

Mr. Sterling. There was not a thing improper 

Mr. Marshall (interposing). He withdrew before there was any 
thought of criminal proceedings. 

Mr. Sterling. It may be he did. I am willing to say that Mr. 
Wood acted with entire propriety, as far as this record shows. Mr. 
Gard, I think, had that in mind. Your office had acted as attorney 
in a civil matter for some of these people who had claims against 
Bard and Keen. I have no doubt if he had received pay for that 
it would have been perfectly proper and that, I think, Mr. Gard had 
in mind when he asked Mr. Hersnen stein, another assistant of yours, 
whether or not he had been paid. I do not think you ought to impute 
to ]\Ir. Gard any insult on his part. Mr. Gard is a man of very refined 
tastes, I think. 

Mr. Marshall. I have never met him, except in connection with 
this case. 

Mr. Sterling. That is the impression I have of Mr. Gard. When 
I read this it occurred to me that if the other matter had not been in 
this record about Mr. Wood, it would have occurred to me that Mr. 
Gard had gone beyond good ethics. But when I consider what had 
occurred with reference to both, Mr. Gard may have had in mind 
that Mr. Hershe.-stein had also represented these people in a similar 
capacity coming from the same office. 

Mr. J^Iarshall. The statement which was told to me was that it 
was merely a fisliing question and had no foundation for it. That 
is what they said to mo. There are one or two things I can do now — — 

Mr. Sterling (interposing). Can you turn to some other points in 
the record? 

Mi-. Marshall. I have a marked copy, and if you %vill permit me 
to do this more carefully, I will send it to you. ^ 

The Chairman. Wliat time can you get that statement back; the 
day after to-morrow morning ? 

Mr. Marshall. I have got to get back to-night, and I could do 
that to-morrow, if necessary. 



80 H. SNOWDEN MARSHALL. 

Mr. Garner. We are limited to the 14th of April to make a report 
to the House. We are required to make a report on that date. 

Mr. Crisp. I think in the interest of all concerned, if the members 
of the committee agree with me, if necessary, I wiU ask the House to 
extend the time 10 days, and to allow us 10 days longer in which to 
make our report. 

The Chairman. We do not want to press you unnecessarily, Mr. 
Marshall. 

Mr. Marshall. I am in a difficult position with several urgent 
cases in the circuit court of appeals, but I can manage to get this in, 
if it has to be done, but it will not be as complete as I would like to 
make it. 

The Chairman. Is there anything you desire to say in reference 
to the letter ? 

Mr. Marshall. No; I have made my statement about the letter. 

The Chairman. It is only something you want to say about the 
Buchanan matter ? 

Mr. Marshall. In reference to the statement made 

The Chairman (interposing). Made by the Congressman? 

Mr. Marshall. By the Congressman; yes. I do not know whether 
it is of any importance, but on the question of whether an effort was 
made to imprison the newspaper reporter, I have here the statement 
of the United States marshal, and of the deputy United States mar- 
shal, to whom the prisoner was turned over. 

The Chairman. You might leave that for the record. 

Mr. Sterling. It does not appear in the record that the com- 
mittee ordered the Sergeant at Arms to commit the prisoner to the 
United States marshal, and one of the members of the subcommittee 
stated to this committee that no such order had been made by the 
subcommittee. 

Mr. Marshall. The statement of the United States marshal is 
that after his deputy had refused to receive the prisoner, the marshal 
was called before the committee, and they inquired why he refused 
to receive the prisoner, and demanded an explanation of that. I 
have here the statement of the marshal. The statements I have here 
are statements of United States Marshal McCarthy and United States 
Deputy Marshal McDonough. 

(The statements referred to are as follows:) 

Statement Made by United States Marshal McCarthy, March 23, 1916. 

On March 3, 1916, L. R. Holme, known to me to be a reporter engaged by the New- 
York Times, wag brought to my office in the custody of the Sergoant at Arms (Hon. 
Robert Gordon) of the House of Representatives, and my chief deputy was requested 
to place the said Holme in custody by the said Sergeant at Arms. My chief depaty 
refusad to place him in custody and immediately thereaftar recounted to me the fact 
of his refusal, and I agreed with him' that he had acted prop?rly. 

Some few minutes thereafter I was notified that the stibcommittee of the Judiciary 
Committee of the House of Representatives that was holding the hearing in the matter 
o^the charges against H. Snowden Marshall, desired to see me, and I thereupon 
went to room 323 of the Post Office Building, said court room being used by the said 
subcommittee. At the hearing were Congressmen Carlin, Card, and Nelson. Con- 
gressman Carlin, being the chairman of the said subcommittee, saw me as I came into 
the court room and beckoned to me to come up to him on the bench, which I did. 
We held a conversation (whispered) in which the following is practically what was 
eaid by Congressman Carlin and, in turn, by myself: 



H. SNOWDEN MARSHALL. 81 

_ Congressman Carlin said that he did not desire to place me in an embarrassing posi- 
tion by putting me on the witness stand and putting me under oath as to the reasons 
for my refusal to comply with the committee's desire that I put Mr. Holme, the said 
New York Times reporter, under arrest, and asked me what my explanation for it 
was. I stated to him that under the law I had absolutely no authority to place the 
said Holme under arrest as no proper commitment of any kind had been liled in my 
office authorizing me to make this arrest or put the said Holme in custody. I said to 
him that the facts of the situation were such that I not only had no right to place 
Holme in custody but that in my judgment the committee had no power to even 
place him in the custody of the Sergeant at Arms. Congressman Carlin appeared to 
me to be somewhat upset by my refusal to obey the command of the committee, and 
I suggested to him that I could show him the law justifying my position. He held a 
whispered conference with his fellow members of the committee, and almost immedi- 
ately an executive session was called, and I was rec}uested to bring to the committee 
the authority that I claimed to have as justification for my refusal to place in custody 
the said Holme. 

I then went to my office and dictated a statement embodying the substance of sec- 
tion 102 of the Revised Statutes. The committee held a conference on this and I 
thereafter brought to them the Revised Statutes, which they compared with the state- 
ment that I had rendered to them, and, apparently, they acquiesced in the proposi- 
tion that I was correct in refusing to place under arrest the said Holme. 

I then suggested to the committee that in 103 United States Reporter a case could 
be found that would justify the position that I took. They asked me to furnish that 
volume, which I did, and after reading the Kilbourne case — that being the case I had 
in mind — they threw open the hearing to the public and resumed proceedings. 

During the executive session Holme was in the court room, but not within hearing 
of what was going on between the committee and myself, and was apparently in the 
custody of the Sergeant at Arms in the rear of the court room. W hen the committee 
resumed its open session, said Holme was brought to the witness chair and the chair- 
man of the committee said that the committee did not wish to place Holme in an 
embarrassing position by continuing his state of arrest; they stated that they had 
every intention to be kind and courteous to him, and therefore would allow him his 
freedom until the committee desired to act further in the premises. 



Statemext Made by United States Deputy Marshal (Chief) Joseph P. McDon- 

ouGH, March 23, 1916. 

On the day in question, I presume it was March 3, 191(), Mr. Gordon^ the Sergeant 
at Arms of the subcommittee of the House of Representatives, came to the marshal's 
window and informed me that he had a prisoner that he wished to turn over to the 
marshal. I said, "What authority have you to present to the marshal for the marshal 
to receive the prisoner? " He said the committee directed it, and I said I would not 
receive the prisoner unless a warrant was presented with him; that is the sum and 
substance of the thing. He turned around and walked out, and it was all over. 

Later, John Noon (a deputy marshal) came in and said that the committee wanted 
to see me. and I went to the committee and told them that I represented the marshal, 
and they said they wanted to see the marshal, and I came back, and the marshal was 
engaged, and after the marshal came out of his room I told him that the committee 
wanted to see him. 

There seems to be some difference of opinion about what took place 
on the occasion when I was called before the subcommittee at an 
executive session. I have prepared a memorandum. I have not 
made it very complete in the statement which I have made to the 
committee. ' I prepared a very careful memorandum shortly after 
the occurrence, within a week after the occurrence, which I would 
like to read to the committee. I am sure I have in there every- 
thing that happened. Possibly I have some things in a different 
order from the way in which they occurred. This is a memorandum 
of my best recollection of everything that occurred between myself 
and the subcommittee. 

37214— H. Kept. 544, 64-1 6 



82 H. SNOWDEN MARSHALL. ' 

(The memorandum referred to is as follows:) 

MEMORANDUM. 

On Monday, the 28th of February, 1916, at about 4 o'clock in the afternoon, the 
sergeant at arms of the subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee of the House oi 
Representatives came to my office and stated to me that the subcommittee was in 
executive session and desired to see me. I went to the room in which the said com- 
mittee was sitting and was introduced by Mr. Carlin — whom I had known before— to 
the other two members of the committee, Messrs. Gard and Nelson. 

When I first went into the room Congressman Reardon and United States Marshal 
McCarthy were present, but they both retired from the room, leaving the committee, 
myself, and, I think, tlie sergeant at arms in the room. 

Mr. Carlin stated to me that the committee was investigating charges made against 
me by Congressman Buchanan. He said that the committee had not asked me to 
appear and that I had not asked to be represented. I told him that that was true, and 
that I would like it to be understood that my appearance on this occasion was at the 
request of the committee. To this all the members of the said subcommittee assented. 

Mr. Carlin then stated that it was the practice in impeachment proceedings to make 
a full investigation, and that at the end, if any facts developed which required ex- 
planation, the accused official was given an opportunity, if he wished to do so, to pre- 
sent his side of the matter to the Judiciary Committee before it took action. _ 

Mr. Carlin asked me if I had seen the charges of Mr. Buchanan, and I replied that 
I had not seen any charges nor been served with any charges. He then said that he 
had them with him, and suggested giving them to me, and I asked him to send them 
to my office. He seemed rather insistent on giving them to me and had the Sergeant 
at Arms take from a satchel a copy of a Congressional Record of a date which I do not 
recall, which contained a speech of Congressman Buchanan moving for my impeach- 
ment on some 42 different charges of bribery and corruption. I took the Congressional 
Record with me when I left. 

Mr. Carlin then said Congressman Buchanan had charged me with everything 
except rape, and that I was too old for that. At this .vitticism Congressman Carlin 
and the other members of the committee broke into laughter, in which I did not join. 

Coingressman Carlin then said that one of the charges against me was that I had 
caused Buchanan to be indicted without any evidence to suppott any indictment, 
and that the committee desired to see the minutes of the grand jury for the purpose 
of dealing with this allegation. In response to this, I told the committee that they 
could clear up at once the whole question of whether Congressman Buchanan had 
been indicted without evidence by requiring him to answer one single question, 
namely, where did the money come from with which the so-called Labors Peace 
Council, of which he was the president, had been financed, and what had been done 
with the money. Congressman Carlin replied that Congressman Buchanan had 
denied that the Labors Peace Council had any money except a couple of thousand 
dollars, and that he had never had any of it and had paid his own expenses. I asked 
Congressman Carlin where Congressman Buchanan had made this denial, and he 
said that he made it in a public speech. I told Congressman Carlin that before I 
replied to his request for the minutes, I would communicate with the Attorney Gen- 
eral, with whom I had already had a talk on this subject, and that I would advise 
him as soon as I heard from the Attorney General. He said that he hoped that neither 
I nor the Attorney General would insist on withholding the minutes from the com- 
mittee, and said that the minutes would be read only by the subcommittee them- 
selves and shown to no one else. I told him that I would take his request under 
consideration, and asked him how long the committee expected to be in this city. 
He said that they were trying to get away as soon as they could, and hoped to be 
finished by the ensuing Thursday. I told him that I would write immediately to 
the Attorney General, and would probably have a telegram the next day. 

I asked the committee if there was anything further that they required of me, and 
they said there was nothing, and I withdrew from the room. 

I then read the speech of Congressman Buchanan embodying the charges against 
me and returned the document to Congressman Carlin, with a letter of which the 
following is a copy: 

February 29, 1916. 

Gentlemen: I have the honor to return herewith with my thanks the copy of the 
Congressional Record of Wednesday, January 12, which you were kind enough to 
lend me yesterday. 



H. SNOWDEN MARSHALL. 83 

I do not observe amoug the charges any charge that the indictment of Buchanan 
and others was brought about as a reprisal for Buchanan's first motion to impeach 
ine; consequently, I suppose that this charge is evolved from the inner consciousness 
of some other person or persons. 
Respectfully, 

H. Snowden Marshall, 

United States Attorney. 
Hon. C. C. Oarlin, 

Chairman Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee, 

House of Representatives, 
Room 323, United States Courthouse and Post-0 ffice Building, 

New York, N. Y. 
This letter reminds me of the fact that during the talk in regard to the charges 
against me Congressman Carliu stated that one of the charges was that I had caused 
the indictment of Buchanan as a reprisal for the first motion which he made in the 
House of Representatives to impeach me. 

I have omitted to state that Congressman Carlin stated to me that I was charged 
with having brought about the indictment of a woman of the name of Rae Tanzer 
without any evidence and the purpose of putting an end to the civil suit which she 
had brought against one James W. Osborne, said to be a close personal friend of mine. 
He said that he wished to see the minutes of the grand jury that found that indictment, 
and, I think, he also asked for the minutes of the grand jury which found the indict- 
ment against the lawyers of this woman, the Messrs. Slade. 

On the ensuing day, after the committee left the building, I received a telegram 
from the Attorney General, and I immediately wrote a letter to the chairman of the 
said committee, as follows: 

February 29, 1916. 

Sir: Yesterday I was asked to appear before your honorable committee and was 
asked to produce the minutes of the grand jury in the case of United States v. Rintelln, 
Buchanan, Lamar, and others, and also the minutes in the cases of the United States v. 
Rae Tanzer and United States v. Slade and McCullough. At that time I stated to 
your committee that I would defer answering your request until I could confer with 
the Attorney General. 

1 wrote to the Attorney General yesterday afternoon, relating the substance of my 
talk with your committee, and received this afternoon after the adjournment of your 
committee and too late to bring it to your attention a telegram, as follows: 

"Your letter 28th received. 

"Federal grand juries are part of the macliinery of the Federal courts, and by long- 
established practice this department and district attorneys are bound not to disclose 
testimony and other proceedings had before grand juries, except upon order of court. 
In present case, moreover, both this department and State Department are of opinion 
that a disclosui'e of the proceedings before the grand jury would be prejudicial to the 
public interests. Accordingly, you are instructed to respectfully decline the com- 
mittee's request. You may show this telegram to the chairman of the committee." 

The original of this telegram is at your service if you desire to see it. 

I do not know whether I understand the situation before your committee, but if I 
am correctly informed Buchanan, who is one of the defendants in this case, has 
stated that he is innocent, and that therefore there could not have been any evidence 
before the grand jiu-y which indicted liim. From tliis fact tliis committee draws the 
inference that he was indicted without any evidence before the grand jiu-y, and on 
account of this inference yoiu- committee asks for the production of the minutes of 
the gi-and jmy. In like manner I understand that your committee has been informed 
by Mr. David Slade that both he and Rae Tanzer were innocent of the crimes for 
which they were indicted, and from this evidence your committee draws the infer- 
ence that there was no evidence before the grand jury wlaich indicted thesie persons. 
I totally disagi-ee with this reasoning and consider the inference which you draw from 
Buchanan's uncorroborated statement to be utterly unwarranted. 

I am myself in entire accord with the views of the Attorney General as expressed 
in the foregoing telegram, and I therefore respectfully decline to produce the min- 
utes of the grand jiuies for wliich the committee has asked. 

If you desire to test the question in any way, I will state for your information that 
all of the minutes for which you have asked are under my control, and if you desire 



84 H. SNOWDEJSr MAESHALL. 

me to do eo I will appear before your committee and make a record of my refiisal to 
produce the minutes, so that you can take such action in regard to the matter as you 
may be advised. 

Respectfully, 

H. Snowden Marshall, 

United States Attorney. 
Hon. C. C. Carlin, 

Chairman Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee, 

House of Representatives, 

Room 323, United States Courthouse and Post-Office Building, New York,N. Y. 
Beyond the interview above described, my published letter to the committee of 
March 4, 1916, and the foregoing, I have had no communication directly of indirectly 
with the said committee. 

Mr. Sterling. I would like to ask you another question. I ask 
you this to get your view of the legal phase of it. 

I think you were entirely right in refusing to show the sub- 
committee the minutes of the grand jury. But it does seem to me 
that this committee were within their jurisdiction when they asked 
anybody who knew whether or not there was any testimony. I do 
not think they had a right to know, and it was not material, what 
testimony there was, because that was purely in the conscience of 
the grand jury as to whether or not there was enough testimony. 
One of these charges made by Buchanan is that the indictments 
were found at your instigation, and through your influence, and that 
no evidence was presented to the grand jury. 

I believe it would have been perfectly proper for you or your 
assistants to say to the subcommittee — and I think one of your 
assistants did say to the subcommittee — that there was evidence. 
I believe the subcommittee was within its jurisdiction in asking 
that one question as to whether or not there was any evidence on 
which to base the indictment. Do you not think so? 

Mr. Marshall. I suppose it would be assumed if 23 gentlemen on 
their oaths presented an indictment they would have had evidence 
to support it. 

Mr. Sterling. That is the presumption. 

Mr. Marshall. That is the presumption. But this is the feature 
of the case which I want to bring to your attention. If A , B, C, or D is 
indicted, and he gets up and says, "There is no evidence; I am 
innocent; I plead not guilty," what court would give him a right 
to make any inquiry into what the grand jury did, or how it had voted. ? 
That was one of the inquiries. What superior right has a Member of 
Congress ? 

The Chairman. Suppose you had pleaded in abatement to the 
indictment that it was found arbitrarily and without evidence, 
would not the court have it investigated l 

Mr. Marshall. I suppose so, if there was anything to support it 
except a mere statement that I was not guilty. That is all there 
was to support this inquiry into what the grand jury had done. 
That was absolutely all there was. There was not another thing, 
except that Buchanan in a public speech said he was innocent, and 
that was apparently thought to give the subcommittee the light to 
call the grand jurymen before it and ask them how they had voted, 
when they began to take up certain classes of evidence, and at what 
time certain names were voted for, and what they did. They asked 
quest iotis about what happened with reference to thirigs that I never 
knew about. 



H. SNOWDEN MARSHALL. 85 

Mr. Sterijng. Tliis is tho point, about it: These charges that 
Buchanan made — I think those questions were along the line of the 
charges — the charges he made were tliat it was through your influ- 
ence that indictments wei-e found without any evidence before the 
grand jury. I agree there is not a thing in the record to show that 
the charge is true. The charge is made, and the subcommittee is 
appointed to investigate to see whether it is true. It seems to me 
they lu^d a perfect right to inquire as to whether or not there was 
any eA'i4e'nce presented. I agree that what the witnesses said 
before t_he grand jury would not have been proper for the committee 
to inquire into; but that was not necessary mth reference to the 
charges. But it seems to me that the subcommittee, along that 
line, did not go very far out of their jurisdiction. 

^Ii\ Garner. Mi-. Marshall, listening to the statement you read, 
I have the idea in my mind that the basis of your entire criticism of 
the committee is the idea that Congress is lending itself to an effort 
to shield one of its Members ? 

Mr. Marshall. I am glad you asked me that question, because I 
want to correct that impression" if such an impression has been 
made. 

Mr. Garner. Take some of the things in your statement, Mr. 
Marshall, and I think that is a just inference that can be drawn from 
your statement, that if Congress is going to take up for investigation 
charges made by an indicted Congressman from any State in the Union 
against a district attorney — defense by impeachment — and the com^ 
mittee is going to follow out the allegations in order to determine 
whether impeachment proceedings lie against the district attorney, 
they are going to intimidate the judicial branch of the Government 
and destroy the opportunity of administering justice, and, as far as 
the Member is concerned, the basis of the entire matter is the action 
of Congress in ordering an investigation to determine whether they 
should impeach you. 

Mr. Marshall. I am very glad you asked the question, because I 
want that to be entirely clear. 

The House of Representatives has the right to vote for an investi- 
gation to determine whether an officer shall be impeached on any 
ground at all. It is none of my business whether it does or does not. 
A Member can come up and say, "I dreamed the district attorney is a 
bad man, and I beheve in dreams," and if Congress believes in dreams, 
it has to have the dream investigated, and that is none of my business. 

I do not pretend to criticize the motives of Congress. I do criticize 
the motives of the man who moved the impeachment resolution. I 
have no doubt about what his motives were, but as far as the right 
or the power of Congress to order the investigation, that is absolutely 
outside of anything I have any right to criticize or to discuss. 

But when you take that and assume, as it may hereafter turn out 
to be, that that impeachment proceeding started on the motion of an 
indictetl Congressman who sul)mittod no evidence to Congress, except 
the statement he made— if you add to that situation the sending of a 
subcommittee to the town where the district attorney lives, the nom- 
ination of the counsel of that subcommittee by the indicted Congress- 
man, the preparation of the case to be submitted to the subcommittee 
by the counsel for the indicted Congressman, the visit of the sub- 
committee to the town where the district attorney lives, and the 



86 H. SNOWDEN MARSHALL. 

proceedings that thereafter occurred, the calling of man after man 
who had been in trouble with the criminal law in force where that 
district attorney has practiced — if you add all those things together 
and make a precedent of this procedure for future cases, I guarantee 
there will not be a district attorney who will prosecute a Congressman. 

Mr. Garner. Are you familiar with the im])eachment proceedings 
in Congress in the past century ? 

Mr. Marshall. I know very little about them. 

Mr. Garner. Suppose it turns out that the proceedings in this case 
are along the Ime of the precedents that have been followed in other 
impeachment proceedings, and let us suppose that the charges that 
have been made against you are of an iniju^achable nature, and Con- 
gress has seen proper to authorize an investigation of these charges, 
do you not think the committee ought to exercise every possible 
effort to ascertain the truth or falsity of the charges and to report to 
the House of Representatives which created it ^ 

Mr. Marshall. Certainly. 

Mr. Garner. The c[uestion of employing counsel is one of ethics or 
advisability, and according to the precedents heretofore the prose- 
cuting witness or the man who made the charges has been allowed 
counsel of his own selection. There is nothing outside the ])recedents • 
in this case. 

Now, let me ask you one other question. 

Mr. Crisp. Was it not true that Congress appointed a subcom- 
mittee to mvestigate the charges preferred against United vStates 
Judge Speer, in my own State of Georgia, and Judge Dayton, in West 
Virgmia, and did they not send special committees to hear testimony 
and report on those charges ? 

Mr. Marshall. Yes. 

Mr. Garner. A subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee Was 
appomted. 

May I ask you this other question, and if you think it is im])roper, 
or if you do not care to answer it, you may so state. I want to ask 
if it was a fact that a certain district attorney, whether it be you or 
some other district attorney, procured an indictment through his 
influence with the members of the grand jury, without any evidence, 
would not that be a serious ofifense '. 

Mr. Marshall. Perfectly outrageous, and an offense for which he 
ought to be immediately impeached or removed. 

Mr. Garner. This charge was made by Buchanan in the impeach- 
ment proceedings against you. So far as I am acquainted with the 
precedents, all that has been necessary heretofore to impeach an 
officer of the Government has been for a Congressman to rise in his 

?lace and present allegations sufficient to justify the impeachment, 
'hen the custom has been for the Judiciary Committee to look into 
the matter in order to see whether it should recommend an investiga- 
tion. That was done in this instance. Everything in your case that 
has happened has occurred in similar proceedings before had in 
investigations heretofore made. So far as I know, this is the first 
time that the good faith or even the wisdom of Congress has been 
questioned by the person against whom impeachment proceedings 
have been l)rought. I imagine in this case it would not have been 
so if you had not been conscious of your innocence and that the man 
was imder indictment in your own court ? 



I 



H. SNOWDEN MARSHALL. 87 

Mr. Marshall. Stop there, if you please, and think ahoiit it. 
Think what it means that a man who is under indictment, who has 
made a foolish lot of prcliniinary charges against me, when he heard 
he was about to be indicted, which he has dropped after he is indicted, 
and mutiplies those charges, making a total of about 42 different 
crimes 

Mr. Sterling. Thirty-nine. 

Mr. Marshall. He comes up and says, "I am hmocent," and there- 
upon tlie main object of the subcommittee that he sets in motion 
seems to be to get the full minutes of the grand jury. 

Mr. Garner. Let us take that proposition. I do not think you do 
the subcommittee justice there, Mr. Marshall. I happen to be well 
acquainted with all the gentlemen on the subcommittee. Mr. Gard 
was on the bench in the State of Ohio and served there with great 
distinction, so the story goes. The other gentlemen on the subcom- 
mittee have been Memlbers of the House for quite a while. Did they 
not say the object of getting these minutes was for the purpose of 
ascertaining the facts, as alleged in the complamt or impeachment 
proceedings, that an indictment was found without any evidence 
before the grand jur}^ ? 

Mr. Marshall. Yes. 

Mr. Garner. Did they not also state they wanted that for their 
own exclusive use and benefit and not for the purpose of letting Mr, 
Buchanan or any other person have that knowledge ? 

Mr. Marshall. That is quite true. 

Mr. Garner. If that was their object in trying to establish this one 
fact, this gravest charge in the entire 39 charges, in my judgment; 
if they were trying to get that one fact, not for the purpose of giving 
it to Mr. Buchanan or anyone else, but for the purpose of reporting to 
Congress on the question as to whether impeacliment proceedings 
should be filed against you — in that, do you not think they were 
within their province in trying to ascertain that fact ? 

Mr. Marshall. I really can not see that the}^ were, to save my life. 
They had the word of an indicted man to set them in motion, and the 
oaths of 23 citizens — leaving me out of consideration — against that, 
and why they were entitled to go into the secrets of the grand jury 
simply on the say-so of an indicted man is beyond me. 

Mr. Garner. You seem to lose sight of the fact that they were 
doing what the House of Kepresentatives had told them to do. You 
arc questioning now the good faith or wisdom of the House of Repre- 
sentatives in asking them to determine whether the facts charged 
by Buchanan were true. It is the whole House of Representatives 
you must complain against. 

Mr. Sterling. Do you think we ought to have questioned the 
motives of Buchanan? I know how you question them, and we, 
privately, may have our vnews about it, but here is a fellow Member 
of the House 'who rises in his place on the floor and prefers charges. 
Do you think we ought to question his motives about it and say to 
him, "You have made these charges because Mr. Marshall has j)re- 
sented a criminal case to the grand jury against you." Do you think 
we ought to do that ? 

Ml'. Marshall. That is a thing I would rather not express an 
opinion about. It is clearly outside of my 

Mr. Crisp (interposing). Judge Sterling, is it not true that it was 
not the individual rising on the floor of the House, preferring charges 



88 H. SNOWDEN MARSHALL. 

against Mr. Marshall, which influenced the House, but was it not the 
Representative acting in his official capacity, making the charge, 
which influenced the House ? 

Mr. Marshall. May I come back again to the question Mr. Garner 
asked just now? The charges that were made — I read the debate, 
I think of January 12, in the Congressional Record, when the charges 
were made and filed against mo. He did not dare to say I had in- 
dicted him because he had moved to impeach me, and there were 
Members of the House who called attention to the fact that that was 
not in the charges, and that idea was never suggested until after the 
charges had been filed and when these gentlemen of the committee 
handed me the copy of the Congressional Record which they gave 
me I looked it over and I found there was not a word in the charges 
that charged me with having had this defendant indicted because he 
had moved to impeach me. 

Mr. Garner. Possibly you give more consideration to the debates 
in the House than we do. What we were considering in the House 
was the charges read from the Speaker's desk against you. 

Mi\ Marshall. That is what I mean now. Take those charges, 
and you can not find in them any suggestion that Buchanan ever 
dared to make that I had had him indicted because he moved to 
impeach me. That seemed to have grown into the situation after 
he filed the charges. 

Mr. Sterling. I think every Member knew when he presented the 
first charges that there was talk in the newspapers about him having 
been presented to the grand jury. I had heard it, and I had read 
something about it in the newspapers. Do you think the Members of 
the House ought to have questioned his motives because of that fact 'i 

Mr. Marshall. I can only say this, if you want my opinion about 
that. I will assume the same situation to have occurred in cases 
with which I have to deal. I get a complaint from an interested 
party. Suppose Jones comes into my office and says he is in a 
violent row with Mr. Brown and he wants to present charges against 
Mr. Brown. I find out he has an ax to grind, that he wants to 
make a collection from Mi-. Brown, or has some interested motive, 
and wants to get me interested. Suppose he is suing Mr. Brown, and 
while the suit is going on he wants me to jump on Mr. Brown to 
indict him, and thinks that will help his suit along. I have always 
said to a man of that kind, '' Wait until you get out of your complica- 
tions and then you bring the case to me, and I wall look into it." 

I am not venturing to tell you what I think Congress ought to do, 
but I am simply telling you what I would do in a case of that kind. 

Mr. Sterling. I think that would be a matter to consider if it 
ever came to the trial of an impeachment charge. But aU the House 
could do, it seems to me, would be to start the machinery in motion 
to take the testimony to see whether or not there was any valid 
foundation for Mr. Buchanan's charges, and to develop, if possible, 
any motive he might have had in bringing the charges. 

Mr. Crisp. Was that not exactly what Mr. Marshall said he would 
do, that if anyone made a compmint, he would investigate it? In 
this case, Mr. Buchanan made a complaint and the House, which, 
under the Constitution is the l)()d)' to investigate complaints of this 
nature, to see whether the House will vote the articles of impeach- 
ment, simply proceeded to do what Mr. Marshall said he would do. 



H. SNOWDEN MAESHALL. 89 

Mr. Marshall. I said I would toll a man in a case of that kind to 
wait until he got through the pending proceedings, and then bring his 
case to mo. 

Mr. Garnek. Your complaint seems to be not only against the 
method of the subcommittee, but it seems to be against the action of 
the House in making an efi'ort to protect Mr. Buchanan, For in- 
stance, after relating the proceedhigs of Congress that were had, you 
say, referring to the action of the House in ordering impeachment 
proceedings, "The whole tiling seems to me to be a desperate effort 
to postpone the trial of Mr. Buchanan." 

Mr, Marshall. I mean it was a desperate effort on Buchanan's 
part. I did not mean that was what impelled the House to vote 
tor it. 

Mr, Garner. This whole proceeding is leading up to the proceedings 
of Congress of the 12th of January, and you say, referring to the 
congressional proceedings, that the whole proceedings seemed to be 
a desperate effort to postpone the trial of Mr, Buchanan, Of course, 
that involved the good faith of the House in its ordermg this investi- 
gation. 

Mr. Marshall. My language is unfortunate if it created that im- 
pression, because I merely meant to say that Buchanan, when he got 
the resolution through, was m.aking a desperate effort to stave off 
his trial, and I did not suggest or intimate, and I would be the last 
one to do it, that the motives of the House of Representatives were 
the same as those of Buchanan, and when I described the motives of 
the subcommittee and charged them with the things I charged them 
with, I did it because they turned Buchanan loose; they did not take 
the thing in their own hands. They let him do what he pleased. 
They made his lawyer their associate; they took his witnesses; they 
never gave anybody else a chance to say anything, and they left a 
mud bath there for everybody who was opposed to Buchanan, which 
was left there to ferment. 

Mr. Sterling. They had to call the witnesses who had been con- 
nected with these things. They may be people in bad repute. I do 
not know about that. I do not think you ought to find fault with 
this committee because they called those witnesses. They called 
your assistants and they would have given you an opportunity — I 
guess they did so — they would have been glad to have had you come 
before the committee and make any statement you desired to make. 

Mr. Marshall. They never said that. 

Mr. Sterling. The committee can not select the witnesses. The 
circumstances determine the witnesses you use — these same witnesses 
you used in these prosecutions. You used Koogle and his wife to 
prosecute their attorney. The very same witnesses they called, you 
used to send people to Ihe penitentiary. 

Mr. Marshall. I had them corroborated in every corner. 

Mr. Sterling. Of course, we have nothing to do with the impeach- 
ment charges. All we have to deal with is the question whether or 
not you are guilty of the conduct charged. 

I am free to say I do not think there is anything in your record 
that casts any reflection on your office. There is nothing sustained. 
You wrote this letter because you wrongfully assumed this com- 
mittee was hostile to 3'ou. I think you are wrong about that. I 



90 H. SNOWDEN MARSHALL. 

think you have made that one mistake that led to this trouble. That 
committee is not hostile to you. The committee is fair. They 
wanted to be fair. The whole trouble comes because you simply 
assumed that they were hostile to you and going outside of their 
jurisdiction. 

I think they did exceed their jurisdiction when they took the wit- 
ness Holme into custody, because it was outside the charges they 
were investigating. But that was a small matter and I would not 
find any fault with your complaining, although you ought not to have 
called it ''lawless tyranny," because I have no doubt they were act- 
ing in good faith, on the spur of the moment. But they had not any 
right, I think, to take him into custody at all. If he refused to 
answer when they asked him material questions they should have 
referred the matter to the House of Representatives. 

The Chairman. That question is not involved here, as to whether 
they had the right to take him into custody. 

Mr. Sterling. Mr. Marshall calls it "lawless tyranny," but it is 
the thing that instituted Mr. Marshall's letter, I think. He may not 
have written the letter if that had not happened. I personally regret 
that you could not have seen your way clear to have withdrawn the 
letter. 

Mr. Crisp. I would like to ask Mr. Marshall if he desires to have 
the opportunity to cross-examine any of the Members of the House 
who have appeared before this committee and testified. Speaking for 
myself, if he does desire that opportunity I am in favor of granting 
him that privilege. I simply desire to have that appear as a matter 
of record. 

The Chairman. That is what the record already shows. 

Mr. Marshall. I do not think of anything now which I desire to 
ask them. I have only had about an hour and a half to run cjuickly 
over the testimony which they have given; but I do not think of 
anything at all at the moment which I desire to say to them. If I do 
and if I have time, I will write and let you know about it. 

The Chairman. Mr. Marshall, you are the United States district 
attorney for the southern district of New York ? 

Mr. Marshall. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. How long have you held that office ? 

Mr. Marshall. I think I took office on May 7, 1913; about thi-ee 
years. 

The Chairman. You indicted, or caused to be indicted, Buchanan, 
Fowler, and a number of others for offenses against the Sherman law ? 

Mr. Marshall. I presented the evidence against them to the grand 
jury, or, rather, my assistants did. I am responsible for what they 
did. 

The Chairman. After that occurred you were impeached in the 
House by Mr. Buchanan for malfeasance and misfeasance in office, 
for crimes and misdemeanors, after that indictment? 

Mr. Marshall. I suppose so. January 12, I think, was the date. 

The Chairman. Among other things, you were charged with tyr- 
anny in the exercise of the functions of your office ? 

Mr. Marshall. I suppose— I do not remember wliat I was charged 
with. That is all a matter of record. 

The Chairman. And thereupon the House ordered an investiga- 
tion of the matter l)y the Judiciary Ccnnmittee. You recognize the 



H. SNOWDEN MARSHALL. 91 

right of the House to inipoach, following charges made against any 
Federal ofiicor ? 

Mr. Marshall. Undouhtedly. 

The Chairman. That committee had the power, by act of the Con- 
gress, to appoint a subcommittee, which w^as clothed with all the power 
of the House in this matter ? 

Mr. Marshall. It certainly had the power to appoint a subcom- 
mittee. 

The Chairman. Appointed by resolution of the House itself, 
authorizing the appointment of the subcommittee. You knew when 
that subcommittee went to New York that it was the representative 
of the Congress of the United States ? 

Mr. Marshall. I knew it had been appointed by Congress and had 
all the powder that a subcommittee of the House has. 

The Chairman. And that would be all the power the Congress itself 
would have, if it were exercising the same duty. 

Mr. Marshall. That is a question of law. I knew the facts. 

The Chairman. How did you assume what the law was ? Did you 
think this committee was a sepa^rate body that might be treated as 
you saw fit, or was a body that had to be treated as a representative 
of the Congress of the United States ? 

Mr. Marshall. I thought of the subcommittee very much as a sort 
of — if you could use analogies — a congressional committee investigat- 
ing impeachment charges seemed to me to be very much like a grand 
jury and district attorney combined, to ascertain whether there were 
charges, and if there were, formulating them and sending them to the 
Senate for trial. 

The Chairman. You knew that the entire Congress could not go to 
investigate them and had to act through a subcommittee ? 

Mr. Marshall. Certainly. 

The Chairman. You knew that subcommittee had the power and 
authority to make that investigation; all the power Congress had 
itself had been vested in the subcommittee ? 

Mr. Marshall. It had the power given by the resolution under 
which it was appointed. 

The Chairman. Did you expect to treat the subcommittee one 
way and the Committee on the Judiciary in another way, that you 
could separate them in your mind — offend one, but not offend the 
other ? 

Mr. Marshall. I certainly did. I do not see why 

The Chairman (interposing) . Then you thought the Congress sent 
out a subcommittee that could be subject to offense and insult, 
without power to protect 

Mr. Marshall (interposing) . I did not think that at all. 

The Chairman. What did you think when you offered indignities 
to this committee? 

Mr. Marshall. Along that line, I do not remember what I thought. 
I could not answer your question. 

The Chairman. When you wrote this letter to the subcommittee, 
were vou thinking about the fact that this was a committee of Con- 
gress,\ir that it was a junketing committee, sent up there to protect 
Buchanan? 

Mr. Marshall. It is pretty hard to answer a question m regard to 

what I was thinking. 



92 H. SNOWDEN MARSHALL. 

The Chairman. What did you say about it in your letter? 

Mr. Marshall. The letter speaks for itself. 

The Chairman. You wrote the letter on that subject, as it appears 
in the record ? 

Mr. Marshall. Yes. 

The Chairman. Mr. Holme was a witness called before that sub- 
committee, and an inquiry was made to him in relation to an article 
published in the New York Times in which it is said: 

It is the belief in the district attorney's office that the real aim of the congressional 
investigation is to put a stop to the criminal investigation of the pro-German partisans. 

Mr. Marshall. I am not responsible for that statement. 

The Chairman. You recognize that that statement would be a 
direct affront to the Congress. 

Mr. Marshall. Oh, certainly. 

The Chairman. And they were making an inquiry about that in 
connection with the charges against you of Mr. Holme, and Mr. 
Holme declined to answer that question, and then you wrote a letter 
justifying Mi\ Holme in his position, and expressing your opinion 
of the subcommittee. You say this: 

WTiat I told him was about as follows. 

They had asked whether you had given Mr. Holme the information. 
You first said: 

It is not necessary for you to place anyone under arrest in order to get the answers 
to the questions which you asked Mr. Holme, because I can and will answer it. I 
gave Mr. Holme information, part of which he published, and from which he made 
deductions, so that if your honorable committee has a grievance it is against me and 
not against him. 

Your opinion seems to have been that it was the Congress that was 
proposing to stop the investigation of the pro-German partisans. 

Mr. Marshall. I am not quite sure I had even seen Mr. Holme's 
article at that time. 

The Chairman. You assumed the authority for the statement that 
it was the Congress that had sent the subcommittee there to stop 
investigations of that sort ? 

Mr. Marshall. I certainly do not want to be put in that position. 
Of course, you could work it around to that, but I think that is hardly 
a fair construction. 

The Chairman. You said further in your letter: 

I said that your expedition to this town was not an investigation conducted in good 
faith, but was a delil:)erate effort to intimidate any district attorney who had the 
temerity to present charges against one of your honorable body. 

Was it your opinion that Congress had sent these men there, and 
that their purpose was to intimidate you because some man had been 
indicted in your court who was a Member of Congress? 

Mr. Marshall. I do not charge Congress with that. The expedi- 
tion to the town and the conduct of it were what I was commenting on. 

The Chairman. They were sent there by Congress, to represent 
Congress. 

Mr. Marshall. An expedition sent to a place can behave in all 
sorts of different ways. ' 

The Chairman. Did jou really think that was the intent and pur- 
pose of this committee, or were you just angry about this matter when 
you wrote that letter? 



H. SNOWDEN MARSHALL. 93 

Mr. Marshall. I really thought the subcommittee was making a 
ferocious, venomous, and malignant drive at my office. I was in 
doubt as to what their motive could be. 

The Chairman. Did you nt)t know their motive was to investigate 
those (juestious? 

Mr. AIarshall. If it was they were going about it in the most 
singular way I have ever seen an investigation conducted, and it 
did not seem to me they were trying to investigate or to got the 
truth. 

Let me state this, and try to put you in possession of the picture 
I had there. I saw a conmiittee that had been in Washington taking 
testimony in secret sessions, in a very decent and respectable kind of 
way. I saw them come to New York, accompanied by the indicted 
Congressman who started the thing, and accompanied by these law- 
yers, and I saw the committee throw their sessions open. I had been 
standing all through the week a series of bombardments from the 
committee itself — i am not speaking of the witnesses they called, but 
T am speaking of the offensive and disagreeable statements the com- 
mitteemen themselves put in the newspapers about me and about 
my office. I had realized the thing had a particular significance. 

Mr. Sterling. Have you some of those newspaper articles ? 

Mr. Marshall. I have not here; but I can get them for you. I 
realized if they came there and left that situation, with the public 
defamation of my office, havmg conducted the only public part of the 

Eroceedings in the town where I live, and then went away, they would 
ave practically succeeded in casting a stigma and a stain on my office 
that would never be removed whether they went ahead with the im- 
peachment proceedings or not. It struck me that the fact of coming 
to New York and calling those different men and throwing those hear- 
ings open, after having been in Washington and having most of the 
people who testified in my favor testify secretly, was a use of the com- 
mittee that Buchanan ought not to have been allowed to make. 
The Chairman. You say further in your letter: 

I pointed out to Mm that you, contrary to usual practice, had come here and had 
held public hearings; that among your witnesses you had invited every rouge that 
you could lay your hands on to come before you and blackguard and slander me and 
my assistants under the full privilege of testifying before a congressional committee. 

You really did not feel they went there for that purpose, did you? 

Mr. Marshall. I have not any doubt 

The Chairman (interposing). And that they subpoenaed rouges to 
injure you ? 

Mr. Marshall. I could only judge of their motives by what they 
did. Can you imagine yourself — let me ask you this for a moment. 
Suppose you were tiying not to injure a man and fuid out facts about 
him and trying to make a rather bona fide investigation as to whether 
the man was guilty. Can you imagine any safer way to do it wrong 
than to do what the subcommittee did ? 

The Chairman. If they subpoenaed nobody but rouges and thieves 
to come here, that might be; but did they not subpoena some of the 
best men hi their city i 

Mr. Marshall. I said among their witnesses; I did not say aU 
their witnesses were rogues. 

Tlie Chairman. Let us ^et down to the facts. I feel as if you do 
not want to leave yourself in bad shape in reference to this matter. 



94 H. SNOWDEN MARSHALL. 

Was not that rather an ebullition of passion, growing out of the sur- 
roundings, and the opinion you had had of the Buchanan case, rather 
than a deliberate statement which you would be willing to stand by ? 

Mr. Marshall. I am not going to say to you gentlemen that I was 
not angry when I wrote that letter, because I was. You can take it 
and dissect it as you are doing now 

The Chairman (interposing). I am just reading the body of your 
letter which comes after the preliminay statement. It is aU here to 
speak for itseK. 

Getting away from that, because that is an embarrassing proposi- 
tion 

Mr. Sterling. I wish you would not get away from that, Mr. Chair- 
man. I believe if Mr. Marshall really understood the situation in 
connection with this matter that he would change his attitude en- 
tirely. I know some of the best men in New York testified in that 
€ase. Stanchfield is a good man? 

Mr. Marshall. A first-rate man. 

Mr. Sterling. He says your office is run in the best manner. Mr. 
Wise explained away practically everything charged against you 
with reference to a certain practice which had been testified about in 
your office and he and a good many other people speak of you in the 
very highest terms. That does not indicate to me that this subcom- 
mittee was trying to hunt up evidence to damage you. 

The Chairman. Why did you want to make this thing public at 
the time — this letter? 

Mr. Marshall. I did it exactly along the line of things of that 
same sort we have had to deal with in New York many times. This 
is not the first time such a thing has occurred. We have had prose- 
cuting officers in New York who sometimes have, for the purpose of 
the destruction of somebody they had reasons to destroy, started very 
much the same sort of an investigation that this committee was con- 
ducting, putting all the evidence against the man in the newspaj)er, 
adding their own comments and their own statements about him, 
and they brought about the ruin of the man, whether the man was 
ever thereafter indicted or not. I have had to fight some of them, 
and I have always thought, and think now, that a man under such 
attack as that, unless he makes a public defense of it at the time, has 
a stain left on his reputation that never is removed. There will always 
be 

The Chairman (interposing). Was not the place for you to make 
that statement before the committee itself, rather than to write this 
letter and publish it before they got it ? 

Mr. Marshall. I had in my mind that committee was absolutely 
hostile from the time they came until they left, and they commenced 
their proceedings by sending the Sergeant at Arms to bring me, 
instead of writing me or otherwise asking me to come. They started 
out by trying to get everything they could out of the grand jury 
situation, and I was defending that tooth and nail, and was going to 
keep them from getting it. 

The Chairman. Feeling that the committee was hostile, this letter 
was made public on your part for the purpose of bringing the com- 
mittee into ridicule and contempt before the people ? 

Mr. Marshall. It is hard for me to analyze my feelings in regard 
to that. I would not like to say yes or no to that. 



H. SNOWDEN MAKSHALL. 95 

The Chairman. If it was not for the purpose of discreditmg the 
committee, why did you publish it ? 

Mr. Marshall. I think I have stated the reason. They had 
adopted the newspapers as the medium of attack. I did not choose 
them. 

Mr. Garner. In that connection, are you justified in making that 
statement ? 

Mr. Marshall. I can not see why it is not true. 

Mr. Garner. Let us take the facts. Can you point to any inter- 
views given by the members of the subcommittee in the newspapers 
calculated to reflect on your office ? You have referred to the fact 
that they gave pubUcity to the hearing. 

Mr. Marshall. That is one. 

Mr. Garner. What other fact can you attribute to those three 
men that would justify that statement on your part? 

Mr. Marshall. I was going to send you an extract from the minutes 
of their hearing, calhng attention to their own comments and state- 
ments, what they said and gave out in the course of the hearing, not 
what the witnesses said, but what the committeemen said, and that 
is one of the things I am not prepared now to give you in detail. 

Mr, Sterling. There could be no purpose of this subcommittee 
taking this testimony in secret, because it is to be pubhshed for the 
benefit of the House, anyway. 

Mr. Marshall. The members of the subcommittee, I have ob- 
served in their statements which I was given this morning, said they 
recognized the propriety, when they called people of doubtful repu- 
tations while the committee was in Washington, of calUng them in 
executive session — that they say it was proper for them to do that 
because until the charges were sustained they did not think it proper 
to have the hearings pubUc. If they were wilhng to be guided by 
that in Washington, under the domination of the whole Judiciary 
Committee, what happened to the subcommittee in New York, where 
the pubhc statements would do me the most damage, when they went 
there with Buchanan and his lawyers and turned the doors open, and 
turned the floodgates of filth open on me and the people in my office ? 

The Chairman. You put yourself in conflict with this committee, 
to begin with, assuming that the committee was going there for the 
improper purpose of protecting Buchanan, when, in fact, Congress 
had sent them to investigate the charges of the tyranny committed 
in your office. Is not the animus of that letter due to the fact that 
you were not satisfied with the method in which they were conducting 
this investigation ? 

Mr. Marshall. That is correct. 

The Chairman. You felt because they were not conducting this 
investigation in accordance with what you thought was the proper 
way to do it, that that justified you in pubhshing a communication 
that brings the committee into ridicule and contempt — an affront to 
them and to the body they represent ? 

Mr. Marshall. That is not intended as an affront to the body 
they represent. 

The Chairman. How can you keep from affronting the body they 
represent when they are the sole agents of that body and appearing 
for such duty in conformity with the resolution under which they 
were appointed? 



96 H. SNOWDEN MARSHALL. 

Mi\ Marshall. I do not believe, Mi-. Chairman, there is one Con- 
gressman in ten who if he knew what was done in New York by the 
subcommittee would approve of it and beheve it was right. 

The Chairman. Assuming they would not approve of the particular 
method in which it was done, yet we have that subcommittee there, 
acting within the scope of its authority, which it must have been do- 
ing in investigating the questions I have called attention to, was it 
not entitled to the respect of an officer of the Government, or of a 
citizen even if he were not an officer of the Government, in the dis- 
charge of their duties ? 

Mr. Marshall. Of course, your question is to be answered in the 
afhrmative, but is there no remedy if I am right in my view about the 
procedure I stated ? Is there no remedy ? 

The Chairman. The remedy you would seem to indicate as the 
best one would be such an assault upon a committee of this House 
as to intimidate it and prevent it from the performance of its duties. 

Mr. Marshall. I never wrote to them until they left town. 

The Chairman. You say in this letter that under no circumstances, 
so long as you are district attorney, would 3^ou permit that committee 
to have the minutes of the grand jury? 

Mr. Marshall. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. One of the very charges against you was tliat by 
your tyra.nnical action you, as district attorney, had forced indict- 
ments that were not in accordance with the law. If those indict- 
ments w^ere in accordance with law, why was it that you would not 
be willing to let the minutes l^e seen 'i 

Mr. Marshall. Obviously I could not let the minutes be seen. 
The case against Buchanan and the others has not been tried yet. 

The Chairman. But that is not the point. 

Mr. Marshall. There were in those minutes — you may not have 
read the telegram of the Attorney General — very important and 
serious matters that were gone into which the State Department did 
not want to have made public or known to anybody. 

The Chairman. Mr. Marshall, would it not have been your duty 
as district attorney and a representative of the Government, when 
called upon by a coordinate branch of the Government in the protec- 
tion of its honor and dignity against your alleged conduct, to have 
brought those minutes before that committee and submitted them 
to that committee, not for publication, but for their inspection simply, 
in order that they might see that the charge of undue oppression and 
tyranny against you was not true? 

Mr. Marshall. I did not think so, and I did not see how, if it 
should be done, I could protect the minutes from being made a pubhc 
congressional document. 

The Chairman. That would not have been publisheil in docu- 
mentary form. You could have submitted them with the under- 
standing that that would not be done. 

Mr. Marshall. Bear in mind I had the statement made to me by 
the attorney general that there had been a promise made that those 
miimtes should not bo intruded into. 

Tlie Chairman. Is it not a part of the duty of your branch of the 
Government or the branch of the Government to which you belong 
to aid the legislative branch of the Goveriiment in upholding its 
poM'er and dignity? Why should there be any conflict at all? 



Id, Si.U\\UKN .MAliSilAl.l.. 9'7 

Mr. M.viisiiAi.L. 1 do not sco wliv Uumc slioukl be ut all, ])ut in the 
case of an iiulictmeiit 

The Chairman. I undersUind hi the case of nn iiulictinent, whore 
there are facts that ouoht not to he known to the defendants until 
after tlie tiiul, wheri> the secrets of the gruiul-jury room ought not 
be disclosed, it is very proper that you should not disclose them in 
an ordinary way; hut there are circumstances under which the court 
is boimd to know what the fads are and the court can order those 
records brought in, and he maintains that secrecy. Could not you 
have treated a committee of Congress with the same sort of consid- 
eration ? Would it not have been the proper thing to do ? 

Ml-. Marshall. I do not think so, Mr. Chairman, with all respect, 
if you will let me rehearse to you what happened. Whe \ I declined 
to give the subconunittee those minutes, I acted under instructions 
from the Attorney General, who agreed with my point of view, and 
I said at the close of my letter that I had the minutes and would 
appear before the con.imittee and make a public record of my refusal, 
so they might take such steps as they wished to tost their right to 
the mumtes. 

The Chairman. We have n.othing to do with the Buchanan case 
except as it incidentally appears here. Do you not know that under 
the charge against you for tyranny in your office, that was the very 
gist of the proposition, that there was no such record there: and 
why, if there was no such record of that sort, if your record was 
complete and if it showed you had the jurisdictional facts and that 
you were exercismg proper authority, could not you have made a 
statement then without disclosing even the minutes, that might have 
been satisfactory to this committee, instead of thwarting the com- 
mittee in the very purpose for which it was appointed ? 

]Sli\ Marshall. That was the purpose. If it had to have those 
minutes, I felt and still feel that it was my duty, whatever the con- 
sequence to myself, to keep them from getting those minutes. 

The Chairman. You knew that would keep Congress from knowing 
the facts, did you not ? 

Ml'. Marshall. Knowing the facts, yes; or some facts. 

The Chairman. You did not want Congress to know the facts ? 

Mr. Marshall. It would keep them from knowing the facts until 
the facts could be properly made public. 

The Chairman. In other words, you set up the power and author- 
ity of your office and yonv right to determine the question above 
the will of the Congress ? 

Mr. Marshall. I wish you to understand, Mr. Chairman, thtit I 
did not act on this thing hastily. I took the advice and instructions 
of my official chief, the attorney general, and whatever my personal 
views had been, I was bound to adhere to my instructions. I do 
not say that because my views differed from those of the attorney 
general, because they did not. 

The Chaik.max. Assuming that you were correct — I think it is a 
"■reat mistake for the judicial branch of the Government to make any 
such contest against the legislative branch — was it proper for you to 
indite a communication of that sort to a connnittee of CV)ngress in the 
language that has been used in this case ? 

Mr. Marshall. I believe it was. 
37214— H. Kept. 544, 64-1 7 



93 H. SNOWDEN MARSHALL. 

Mr. Stekling. The committeo never tried to force prcxluctiou of 
the minutes, did it ? 

Mr. Marshall. It did. I see it is stated here that it did not. May 
I state the facts about that, because I know about that myself ? They 
are all narrated in my statement, tliat the first day the committee 
arrived in New York, it started its sessions — that is, it started its ses- 
sioxis on Monday, wliich I believe was the 28th of February. On that 
afternoon they asked me for the minutes and you will remember what 
occurred. I said I would consult the Attorney General. Wednesday 
morning following, the 1st day of March — the 29th of February com- 
ing in there — I gave them the refusal or the instructions of the At- 
torney General that I should respectfully decline to produce the min- 
utes. After that they subpoenaed my assistant, who had been in the 
grand jury room, conducting this investigation, and asked him for the 
minutes, and at the end of his testimony, they intimated to him that 
he had better stay around some time because they would have an 
interesting communication to make to him, which the papers took to 
be a threat to lock him up. After they got through with that, the}' 
issued subpoenaes for the two stenographers for the grand jury. I 
had to send for them and instruct them to respectfully decline. They 
asserted, and so far as I can make out, they were making every possi- 
ble effort to get these minutes, and I was, as I understood it, bound 
to defend them tooth and nail. 

Ml. Sterling. They never did arrest anybody for not producing 
them, did they? 

Mr. Marshall. No. But the next man might have expected an 
arrest after my assistant had been warned. 

Tlie Chairman. I believe I asked you before the purpose you had 
in making the letter public. You wrote a second letter, in which 
you say that you did not intend to offend the Congress or the Judici- 
ary Committee, ''but I do not retract or modify any of those criti- 
cisms" — that is, the criticisms you made against the subcommittee. 

Mr. Marshall. May I ask you to read it all? That is as to the 
methods of the subcommittee. 

The Chairman. Yes; I will read it all. 

Referring to my letter of March 4, addressed to the chairman of the subcommittee, 
wliich has recently taken testimony in New York concerning my administration of 
my office, I notice from the press that some persons appear to have construed my 
etaLements as directed toward yoiu* honorable committee as a whole. I beg to advise 
you that the criticisms in that letter were addressed to the methods pursued by the 
subcommittee. I do not retract nor modify any of those criticisms. But I did not 
intend (nor do I think my letter should be so construed) to reflect in any way upon 
the Judiciary Committee, nor did I question the power of the House of Representa- 
tives to order such an investigation. If you and the other members of your committee 
for whom I have high respect, have gained the impression that my letter carried any 
personal reflection upon your honorable committee, it gives me pleasure to assure 
you that I had no such piu-pose. 

You meant by that, did you, that you had no respect for that 
subcommittee? That is the inference I draw from the letter. I 
want to know whether or not that is what you intended ? 

Mr. Marshall. I do not think that inference ought to be drawn. 
1 wrote that letter to Mr. Webb. I have known Mr. Webb, and I 
have known a number of gentlemen in Congress, for whom I have 
the highest respect. 

Tlio Chairman. You do not retract or modify any criticisms of 
the subcommittee ? 



I 



H. SNOWDEN MARSHALL. 99 

Mr. Marshall. If you will read the whole letter 

The Chairalvn (interposing). I read it all. You say you have 
great respect for tlie .liidiciarv Committee and the House of Repre- 
sentatives, leaving the impression that you had none for tliat sub- 
committee. 

Mr. Marshall. 1 certainlv did not say that, and I did not intend 
to state that. 

The Chairman. Mr. Marsliall, 3^(_)u have written these two letters, 
and, of course, you must reahze that that letter is an intensely ofi'en- 
sive document to that subcommittee. After you have had time to 
reflect vipon the letter and upon the whole matter and all the whole 
facts and circumstances connected with it, do you still want this 
committee to understan.d that you meant everything you said in 
those letters, and that you have no apology to make in reference to 
them? 

Mr. Marshall. I do, ^li\ Chairman. 

The Chairman. You do? 

Mr. Marshall. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Understanding fully that this committee repre- 
sented the House of Representatives ? 

Mr. M.VRSHALL. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Garner. Mr. Marshall, I can not get away from the unfortunate 
language you used in writing this letter and the statement that you 
filed with the committee to-day, nor from the fact that in it is con- 
v(\ye(l the idea beyond ciuestion, to my mind, that you had in view 
the wisdom and the patriotism of the Congress itself in ordering this 
investigation against you. In glancing through this statement here, 
while you have been testifying — which was evidently deliberately 
prepared, though probably hastily, as you say, after you got your 
letter — I am led to the inference that you are willing to sacrifice your 
pei-sonal interest in the matter and everything in order to establish a 
])recedent in the Congress and throughout the country of the fact that 
when a Member of Congress is indicted, if he impeaches the district 
attorney in the Congress, that the Congress itself ought not to pay 
any attention to that impeachment. Do not you intend to convey 
that idea ? 

Mr. Marshall. Yes. 

Mr. Garner. You do? 

Mr. Marshall. I do not think it ought to be done — not tha,t idea 
alone. I think it ought not to be done coupled with the other circum- 
stances of this case. It ought not to be done plus the appointment 
of a subcommittee. I do not want you to take any one thing out of 
my whole picture and make it stand alone, because it is not intended 
to do that. 

Mr. Garner. But you do present an argument here 

Mr. Marshall (interrupting). Against the course of Congress 

Mr. Garner (continuing). Gohig" toward the pohcy of the House 
of Representatives in giving consideration to impeachment pro- 
ceedings that may be filed by a sitting Member while he is under 
indictment in a district court of the United States. 

Mr. Marshat>l. Plus turning over to him, for his 

Mr. Garner (interru])ting). You do make that proposition, which 
makes no difference what th(^ cliarges are ^ 

Mr. Marshall finterrupthig). I do not think so. 



100 H. SNOWDEN MAESHALL. 

Mr. Garni:r (continuing). Because there can not be any higher 
charges against a district attorney than the fact that by the tyranny 
of his office he procures an indictment against citizens of the United 
States without any testimony whatever. 

Mr. Marshall. I do not know of such a possibility. 

Mr. Garner. Do you know of a higher offense against society that 
a district attorney could perform ? 

Mr. Marshall. Tliat is a dime-novel theory. It has not been 
done by anybody anywhere. 

Mr. Garner. I am not saying it was done. I am .simply putting 
a hypothetical case to you. In this instance a Representative of 
Congress did impeach a district attorney and alleged in his impeach- 
ment proceedings that ho had procured an indictment by tyranny 
and influence in his office without any evidence to sustain it. That 
is about as high a charge as I can conceive of against a district 
attorney. Your position, if I understand it correctly, is that the 
Congress or the House of Representatives, when those charges are 
made by a sitting Member who has been indicted, ought not to give 
them any consideration or make any investigation concerning them ? 

Mr. Marshall. Xo; I do not want you to tie me to that thing, 
leaving all of the rest of it out. I had never had any objection to an 
investigation of anything. But here, just before the Buchanan trial, 
to have this expedition brought to New York, and ha v^e this so-caUed 
investigation made, which consisted mostly of abuse and villifica- 
tion — sticking it all in the newspapers — what ])etter thing could be 
done ? What could you give a man better if he was under accusa- 
tion of crime, if he could do what has been done here, and who would 
have prosecuted him ? 

Mr. Garner. I agree with you that you have raised a very in- 
teresting problem that might be considered by the House of Repre- 
sentatives and might be a precedent — that a sitting Member who is 
under indictment ought not be permitted by the House of Repre- 
sentatives to file impeachment proceedings against the prosecuting 
office!. I want to call your attention to your statement here, in 
which you said to this committee to-day: 

Defense by impeachment, as I have said, is a novel defense. 

Mr. Marshall. That is true. 

Mr. Garner. That is the act of the House of Representatives. 

Mr. Marshall. That is perhaps where I am a little confused in 
my language. The language which the chairman has used here and 
the language that is used by the subcommittee and the language 
that is used all through this record is that I was what they described 
as ''impeached" when Buchanan got up and made his speech. That 
is what they call impeached. He gets up and says, ''1 impeach the 
district attorney," etc. If my language is A\Tong, I have followed 
the committee's language and the language of the chairman of this 
committee. 

Mr. Garner. Here is your language: 

It is my unfortunate lot to take part in the tirst case of this character. 

Mr. Marshall. Is not that true ? This is the first time a Congress- 
man ever did this. 

Mr. Garner. I am trying to lead up to the proposition that you 
are willing to make vourself a martyr in this instance in order that 



H. SNOWDEX MARSHALL. 101 



unwis- 
propositioii 



the Congress of the United States may be impressed with the 
dom, if Imay use that term, of ever a^ain considering the proj 
of impeaching a prosecuting officer of a sitting Member 

Mr. Marshall. Or of adopting this course of conduct which has 
been adopted in this case — the whole case. I do not mean they 
could not impeach him. Suppose a man is bribed to prosecute a 
Congressman and the proof is brought to the Congress that he had 
been bribed to do it and Congress looked into it and acted carefully 
and made a study of it and found there was substantial evidence of 
it, I think a thorough and patient and temperate examination of 
that should be made. 

Mr. Garxer. Let us see if you mean that with reference to this 
committee : 

At whatever discomfort lo myself, it is my intention to see this case to the end. 
Surely the House of Representatives does not contemplate establishing the precedent 
that violators of criminal law — 

You are not talking about the subcommittee now — 

if they happen to be Members, will find in it a "Vv''hite Friar" or "Alsatia" w ich 
will be their sanctuary against prosecutors who seek to apply that law. 

You were not speaking about the conduct of a committee at that 
time. You were speaking about the House of Representatives in 
ordering an investigation of mipeachment proceedings by a sitting 
Member who happened to be under indictment. All through your 
statement and in your letter here the whole body of the House of 
Representatives seemed to have been in your mind. I will call your 
attention to your letter for a moment, in which you said : 

I said that your expedition to this town was not an investigation conducted in 
good faith, but was a deliberate effort to intimidate any district attorney who had 
the temerity to present charges against one of your honoral)le body. 

"Your honorable body" must have referred to the House of 
Representatives. 

Mr. Marshall. Yes; but it is addressed to the committee, ''the 
expedition" of the committee "to this town." 

Mr. Garner. You knew they w^ent under the direction of the 
House of Representatives, and what I v/ant to get in my mind is 
whether or not you, as district attorney and a Federal officer, had 
such conception' of the House of Representatives that they were 
parties to an effort to shield a criminal because he happened to be a 
Member of the House of Representatives. 

Mr. Marshall. Let me say again, and make it as strong as I can, 
that I have no such ideas; "and" while, of course, you can take this 
statement which I have prepared here hastily and find httle pieces in 
it that mean that, 1 do not think there is any of the statement that 
conveys the idea that you just suggested: and if there is any, it is not 
intended. It is a slip of some sort. 

The CpL\iRMAN. Your whole idea, Mr. Marshall, w^as to express 
vour profound contempt for that subcommittee? That was all, was 
It not? 

Mr. Marsjlvll. Is that quite a fair question to put to me? 

Mr. Garxer. I think it is due to the subcommittee to express my 
opinion concerning their impartiality toward you. In my candid 
judgment, that subcommittee was partial to you in their hearts and 
m their sentiments. I do not beheve when they started in to inves- 



102 H. SNOWDEN MARSHALL. 

tigate this matter that thert>. was any impeachable act of yours that 
should be presented to the United States vSenate. I do not know 
what their opinion is now, but that is my judgment about it, because 
I know these men and I have heard them express themselves, and I 
know their very high character and I think you had an erroneous 
idea in the beginning as to the character of the men and the purpose 
they had in view. I think another thing, if you will p(n-mit me to 
put it as a matter of suggestion — that you people in New York 
conduct too much of your business through the newspapers. Your 
statement here this afternoon is with reference to what the news- 
papers said and did, and too much of your public business is con- 
ducted througli the newspapers. 

Mr. Marshall. I agree with that fully, and I do not think any of 
this ought to have been in the newspapers. T think that nine Mem- 
bers of Congress out of ten, if they had that thing to take care of, 
Avould have conducted it just the way the proceedings of the whole 
committee were conducted here in Washington. 

The Chairman. I asked a question a little while ago which 3"ou said 
you thought was not fair. I do rot w%i' t to put a question that is not 
fair. May I put it to you v■^ aaother way? The opinion that you 
expressed in the two letters that you wrote to the subcommittee and 
to the full committee on this question was your opinion and feeling- 
agai st the three members of the subcommittee ard not agahist the 
Judiciary Committee as a whole and r.ot against the House ? Is that 
what you want us to understand ? 

Mr. Marshall. The language of the v.hole letter explains itself. 
It was against the methods of the subcommittee. I do not know 
those gentlemen — that is, I have a slight acquaitttan.ce with Mr. 
Carlin only. 

The Chairman. That involves the whole thing^ — their conduct. 

Mr. Marshall. I would ]iot undertake to form an opiviion; it is 
of Jio importance what my opinion is. 

The Chairman. Your opinaoh wiU be determined from what you 
Avrote, of course. You m.eant that to be against the su])committee 
and not against the House of RepreseiUatives ? 

Mr. Marshall. Against the methods of the subconunittee, if I may 
repeat that, because I say at the end of my statement here subnnitted 
to-day that I knew always there was i otliii g personal agaii st me in 
this tiiij^g. These gentlemen of the subcommittee did n.ot kn.ow me. 
So far as Buchanan and I are conceriied, I do n.ot think we would 
know if we met each other on the street. We met on.ce H) years ago, 
I believe. 

The Chairman. What I want to get at is whether, in the event 
this committee of the House should think, from the whole proceed- 
ing, that you are in contempt of the House, you intended what 3^ou 
had done in stating this matter as being directed against the House 
and the Judiciary Committee, or whether it was merely against the 
subcommittee ? 

Mr. Marshall. It was not directed against the House. It was 
not directed against the committee. It was directed against the 
methods of the subcommittee only. I make that as plain as I pos- 
sibly can. 

The Chairman. If it should be held that the subcommittee was in 
effect the House of Representatives under the circumstances, acting 



• 



H. SNOWDEN MAKSHALL. 103 

under its power and authority, and that whatever you did against 
them woukl be against the House, I take it you w^ould want to apolo- 
gize lo the House ? 

Mr. Marshall. I can not imagine such a contingency. I would 
liave to deal with it as a separate matter. 

The Chairman. You can not imagine that the committee would 
ht)ld that the subcommittee was acting for the House of Represent- 
atives and clothed with its power and authority, and that whatever 
indignity you offered to them was an indignity offered to the House ? 
You say you can not imagine that ? 

]yii\ Marshall. No; it is almost impossible to me. I should have 
to wait and deal with that when it arose. 

The Chairman. I can not conceive how it is that any other opinion 
could be held than that a contempt of this committee would be a 
contempt of the House itself, because, if the House is not clothed with 
the power to follow its committees and protect them from intimida- 
tion and insult, then the House itself is powerless. 

Mr. Sterling. That is true if the committee is proceeding under 
the rules of Congress and within its authority. 

Tlie Chairman. Of course, if the committee were acting ultra vires, 
that is another question. 

Mr. Lenroot. Do you wish the committee to understand, Mr. 
Marshall, that you had no intention of casting any reflections upon 
the subcommittee or their motives, but only as to the subcommittee's 
metliods of pursuing the investigation 'i ^ 

Mr. Marshall. Yes; mv criticism was of the methods pursued by 
that subcommittee. I have stated that several times. 

Mr. Lenroot. I know you have, but do you wish us to understand 
that you had no feeling against or toward the members of the sub- 
committee and did not wisli this letter to carry any reflection upon 
the members of that subcommittee? , , . i 

Mr. Marshall. The situation was this: There had been a week 
of successively aggravating pubUcations in the newspapers m JNew 
York One thing after another had been brought out. At odd 
times the statements of the sub committeemen and then comments 
on the evidence had been brought out. There was left a public im- 
pression that would have lasted forever if I had not answered it in 
the forum which they chose, and I had to do what^I did; I could not 
have done anything else. It was a necessity that I was placed under 
bv circumstances which I did not set m motion. 

"Mr Sterling. Why do vou hold the comuiutco r-sponsible lor 
those pubUcations iA the' newspapers? They were written by 
reporters that were there. , 

]\Tr. I^Tarshall. Yes; they were written by the reporters who were 
there, but the proceedings'were thrown open by the subcommittee 
after stating, and agreeing-and in those statements that 1 ^e 
they have made to this committee-that that was not propei m 
Washington, but in New York it seems for some reason to li-^^e been 
proper. The Washington hearings were hearings m exec^tne ses- 
sion, so all this mud and filth could not be tossed around bv these 
people they subpoenaed. The minute the ^^^^^^^^Ijf.^t not di^ 
York the restrictions are removed for some reason that is not dis- 
closed . 



104 H. SNOWDEN MARSHALL. 



Mr. Crisp. ^Ir. ]\iarslian, will you send to the committee with your 
statement some of the articles that you say appeared in the news- 
papers chargeable to the members of the subcommittee at which 
you took offense or which you think were improper ? 

Mr. ^Taeshall. I will see if I can get them together. 

Mr. Sterling. Will you also mark in this printed record of the 
testimony taken before that subcommittee in New York the things 
that you particularly complain of showing bad motives on the part 
of the committee ? 

Mr. ]\Iarshall. All right, sir. 

The Chairman. Send us anything, Mr. Marshall, that you want to 
send, which you feel justifies you in your course in this matter, or 
which you feel is in mitigation of it in any way. 

Mr. Marshall. I will do so, Mr. Chau-man. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further you wish to present at 
this time ? 

Mr. Marshall. No; not now, but I would like a little time to run 
over these statements I have. 

The Chairman. There is nothing \'ou want to send to the commit- 
tee now except some explanations of that testimony ? 

Mr. ^Jarsiiall. Some comments on that, and some newspaper 
articles which have been asked for. 

The C hairman. Very well. The committee will stand adjourned, 
subject to the call of the chairman. 

(Whereupon, at 4. .30 o'clock p. m., the committee adjourned.) 



1 



Department or Justice, 
United States Attorney's Office, 

New York, April 12, 1916. 

My Dear Sir: I have been under great pressure of work since my return and this 
is t'le lirst opportunity I have had to write to you. 

On the hearing on Monday. April 10, before the select committee, of which yon are 
cJiairnian, I was asked by Congressman Sterling to direct his attention to some of the 
striking instances of offensive statements on the part of the subcommittee. He also 
asked me to send him some of the newspaper statements which I mentioned during 
my testimony. I asked the committee for leave to make such comments as I thought 
should be made on the testimony of the subcommittee and of Mr. We})b before the 
select committee, taken on April 7, 1916. 

First. ]\Iy time is so short that I can not make a complete statement about the 
offensive statements made by members of the subcommittee. I inclose, however, 
the copy of the testimony taken before the subcommittee in New York, with pencil 
marks indicating some of the most conspicuous instances of conduct of that character. 
While on tliis subject I should like to ask you and Mr. SterUng to be good enough to 
examine the memorandum which I have had prepared by Mr. Wood, and which I in- 
close herewith. The first part of the memorandum deals with Mr. Gard's explanation 
of his ciuestion to Mr. Anderson, in which Mr. Gard intimated that there had beena 
bribe paid to one of my assistants. You will recall that this was discussed at the hear- 
ing before your committee on Monday, and Mr. Sterling suggested that Mr. (iard 
might have gotten confused. I think Mr. Wood's memorandum completely disposes 
of the possibility of Mr. Gard's having been confused and demonstrates that his inti- 
mation that there had been bribery of my assistants was a deliberate effort to publicly 
slander my ofiice. 

It is really very hard for me to debate questions of this soi't. The questions which 
your committee has to ])ass upon seem to me to be extremely important, and all of 
the facts ought to be undisputed and you should not be embarrassed by misleading 
statements and by the necessity of vv-eighing evidence. The statements which are 
now made by members of the subcommittee are to the general effect that they were 
so extremely fair and considerate to me and my assistants when they came to New 
York that there was no provocation whatever for the letter which I wrote and whicJ* 



H. SNOWDEN MAKSHALL. 105 

iB claimed to be a contempt of the House. 1 do not wish to argue these facta with 
the subcommittee. If you have any doubt about their course of conduct, which be- 
came and was a public scandal in this city, I would ask you to take some steps to satisfy 
yourselves on the subject. There are two important associations of lawyers in this 
city, one being the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, of which ex- 
Attorney General Wickersham is president, and the other being the New York County 
Lawyers' Association, the president of which is the Hon. Edgar M. Cullen, ex-chief 
judge of the court of appeals of this State. If you will write to these gentlemen for 
a report on the facts, or write to any other reputable lawyer in this city, I think you 
can readily satisfy yourselves as to the course of conduct of the subcommittee while 
they were- here. 

The statements by the members of the subcommittee are, of course, made by in- 
terested parties and, I suppose, the same criticism ought to be made of any statement 
which I make. I think you can satisfy yourselves easily and simply on this question 
of fact if you \vish to do so by adopting the course which I have suggested and I am 
quite sure that either of the organizations which I have referred to,"or both of them, 
would be glad to make to you promptly an unbiased statement of the facts. 

Second. Complying with the request of Mr. Sterling, I inclose herewith some 
clippings from the newspapers concerning the "investigation" conducted by the 
subcommittee. 

Third. Comments on testimony of Mi'. "Webb and members of the subcommittee: 

(1) Ml". Webb is misinformed as to the publication of my letter of March 4, 1916, 
to Mr. Carlin. I took particular pains to see that the letter was not released to the 
press until it had been delivered to Mr. Carlin. It was not released to the press until 
4 p. m. of Saturday, March 4, 1916, and it was delivered to Mr. Carlin certainly about 
2.30 p. m. on that afternoon. I know notMng about the person who may have called 
Mr. Carlin up on the telephone, and who, as he says, refused to give his name. 

(2) I shall not debate the claims made by the members of the subcommittee to the 
effect that the indictments against Rae Tanzer and the Slades were a wrench of the 
Federal jurisdiction. The indictments have been returned and the defendants are 
to be put on trial, and I see no reason for engaging in a discussion with the subcom- 
mittee as to the propriely of the indictments. The subcommittee has derived its 
information wholly from Mr. Ma,rtin Littleton, who was not examined in New York, 
and whose testimony I have not seen, and who was the attorney for the Slades, and 
from the Slades, who are under indictment, and from other interested parties. They 
have never done me the honor of asking me to state my views. If they wish to form 
their opinion in this way, they are at liberty, of course, to do so. 

(3) I observe the statement made by Mr. Webb, on page 24 of the minutes of the 
testimony taken before the select committee, referring to the telegram of the Attor- 
ney General. "* * * when Mr. Marshall presented the telegram to the members 
of the subcommittee, that was the end of the grand jury minutes. They never is,sued 
subpoena duces tecum to get the minutes at all * * * they never issued a sub- 
poena duces tecum, and when Mr. Marshall presented this telegram from the Attorney 
General, that was the end of it." 

Mr. Webb has evidently been totally misinformed about the facts. The copy of 
the Attorney General's telegram was given to the subcommittee on the morning of 
Wednesday, March 1, the letter being physically delivered to Mr. Nelson on that 
morning. The delivery of the letter was by no means "the end of it." On March 
2 the subcommittee subpoenaed my assistant, Mr. Raymond Sarfaty, who had been 
in charge of the investigation into the Buchanan case, and asked him about the grand 
jury proceedings. He was a,sked a number of questions as to what occurred in the 
grand jury room, which he refused to answer. He was asked (p. 202 of the printed 
record) whether he expected to be in New York for the next few days, -'because 
the committee may have an interesting communication to make to you." This was 
obviously Intended to convey a threat of punishment to my assistant, and was re- 
ported in the newspapers as a threat of punishment for contempt. 

Having thus advertised the prospective fate of a witness who refused to give the 
grand jury minutes to the subcommittee, the subcommittee placed the two grand 
]ury stenographers under subpoena, and intended, I suppose, to put them on the 
stand. I learned of the occurrence and advised both of the stenographers that they 
were officers of the Department of Justice, and were under my strict instructions to 
refuse to divulge anything that happened in the grand jury room. Mr. Webb is 
perhaps literally correct in stating that the subcommittee did not issue a subpoena 
duces tecum to get the grand jury minutes, but, if he has been informed that the sub- 
committee dropped the whole subject when they learned of the telegram of the Attor- 
ney General, the information is utterly inaccurate. 



106 H. SNOWDEN MAKSHALL. 

(4) Referring to the comments which the subcommittee make on what they described 
as my arrogant manner when I came before the subcommittee, I am, of course, unable 
to testify. I endeavored to treat the subcommittee with entire respect. I submitted, 
during my testimony before your committee on Monday last, a memorandum of what 
occurred before the subcommittee on that occasion, which is as accurate as I can make 
it. I had been brought before the subcommittee, not by an ordinary invitation, but 
was accompanied to their presence by the Sergeant at Arms of the House. I had 
learned that the subcommittee, in violation of the promise which I had been informed 
was made by Mr. Caiiin to the Attorney General, had started off to pry into the secrets 
of the grand jury room, and under the circumstances I took the greatest care to limit 
the conversation to the subjects which were brought up by the members of the sub- 
committee. "\Mien they i^roposed to hand me a copy of the charges, I thought that if 
there had been charges formulated against me it would be wiser to have them served 
upon me in some formal manner, and asked that they be sent to my office. Nobody, of 
course, can testify about what his manner indicates to anybody else, but I am entirely- 
sure that even under the circumstances in which the subcommittee placed me, I said 
nothing that was in the least degree disrespectful to the subcommittee. 

(5) I note Mr. Gard's statement on page 71 of the record of your committee, "We 
told him that he was entirely welcome to be present at any time, either himself or by 
his attorney." The statement to which Mr. Gard refers was made by Mr. Carlin and 
was to the effect that I had not been asked to be present or represented and had pre- 
ferred no request to be present or to be represented. I followed Mr. ( 'arlin's language 
closely and have no doubt at all about the accuracy of my recollection. 

Lastly, and in justice to my assistants and myself, who have been under attack, I 
wish to comment generally on the various criticisms of the conduct of my office which 
have been made by the subcommittee in their testimony before the select committee. 
There is not one single subject involved in these criticisms in regard to which I have 
had any opportunity at all of stating my side of the case. The iiivestigation, if it may 
be so termed, has been wholly one-sided, and most of the witnesses whose testimony 
has been apparently accepted by the subcommittee are persons who have the strongest 
eort of grudge against my office. The fact that I do not take up in detail many of the 
statements which I obser\e in the stenographic minutes will not, I am sure, be con- 
strued by the sele(;t committee as an assent to the correctness of the statements which 
have been made to you. 

I am relying on the fact that one of two things is sure lo happen: Either the charges 
of Mr. Buchanan will fall of their own weight or else, perhaps, in the House of Repre- 
sentatives, or surely in the Senate, the time will come when I and my assistants will 
have an opportunity to present the evidence on our side of the controversy. 
Very respectfully, 

H. Snowden Marshall. 

Hon. John A. Moon, 

Chairman Select Coinmitiee of the House of Representolivcs, Washington, D. C. 

P. S. - I am addressing tliis letter to you because, while my answers apply to ques- 
tions by the different members of your ;:ommittee, I was requested on the hearing last 
Mondav bv Mr. Sterling to send my communication to vou. 

H. S. M. 



[Memorandum for Mr. Marsliall.] 

I understand that Judge Moon or one of the other members of the select committee 
of the House told you that, Mr. Gard might have thought that Mr. Anderson was my 
client, and had gotten me mixed up with Hershenstein when he asked Mr. Anderson 
the following questions: 

"Mr. Garu. How much did you pay Mr. Hershenstein for his services? 

"Mr. AxDEUsoN. What did 1 what? 

" Mr. Gard. What did you pay Mr. Hershenstein for his services? 

"Mr. Anoerson. Up to the present 1 have not offered him any pay. 

"Mr. Gauu. That is interesting. How much do you intend to offer him? 

"Mr. Anderson. That I intend to offer Mr. Hershenstein? 

"Mr. Gard. You said. 'Up to the present I have not offered him any pay;' how 
much do you intend to offer him? 

"Mr. Anderson. I do not intend to offer Mr. Hershenstein anything; he has not 
asked me for anything. 

"Mr. Gahd. We are glad to know that; you said up to the pre.sent time you had 
not offered him anything." (P. 253 of the record.) 



H. SNOWDEN MARSHALL. 107 

riiere could liave been uo misapprehension about Mr. Anderson being my client, 
because Mr. Anderson had testified in answer to a question from Mr. Gard: 

"IMr. Gard. Do you know anything about Mr. Wood's connection with that case? 

"Mr. Axderson.'No, sir; he had no connection tlu-ough me in tliis case. I did 
not know Mr. Wood." (P. 250 of the record.) 

I had testified before Mr. Anderson was called and had told the committee that I 
had appeared as an attorney representing the Pikes Peak Film Co. (p. 226 of the record) , 
and that I did not know the complainants, Messrs. Anderson & Burke, and had never 
heard of them until soA'eral days after the complaint had been made to Mr. Hershenstein 
(p. 22(i of the record). 

In addition to this, after the committee had adjourned and Mr. Gard was asked 
about tins question — the following appears in the New York World of March 3: 

"Toward the end of Mr. Anderson's examination suddenly and sneeripgly Con- 
gressman Gard asked the witness: 'How much did you offer Hershenstein?' The 
witiiess was plainly surprised and affronted. 'I have not made him any offer yet/ 
he replied slowly. 'That is interesting,' was the response. 'How much do you 
intend to offer him?' The witness replied that he had 'no intention at any time of 
offering any sum whatever.' After adjournment Mr. Gard was asked if there had 
been anything in the testimony to create an impression or suspicion that corruption 
had existed in the district attorney's office. 'There has been nothing of the kind,' 
he replied: 'the question was just a fisher.' " 

I note in the statement made by the members of the subcommittee of the Judiciary 
Committee that in order to be fair to you the subcommittee, although Safford had 
been subpoenaed to appear in Washington, would not hear him because they heard he 
had been convicted of perjury. 

The facts are that the committee was advised when Benjamin Slade was on the 
stand that Safford had been convicted of perjury. On page 116 of the record he waa 
asked by Mr. Carlin: 

"Safford was tried and convicted, was he not? 

"Mr. Slade. Yes, he was; the case is now before the circuit court of appeals. 

"Mr. Carlin. What was he convicted of — perjury? 

"Mr. Slade. Yes, perjury." 

I also testified that Safford had been indicted and convicted of perjury. (P. 249 

of the record.) , , , ,- -^x , 

Benjamin Slade was examined on February 29, the second day of the committee s 
sessions, and I was examined on March 2, the fourth day of the sessions, so that it 
is apparent that early in the hearings the committee was advised that Safford had 
been convicted of perjury. The record shows that Safford was in court on Friday, 
March 3, when, referring to Safford, Mr. Carlin said: "It is not necessary; he is here to 
testify for himself." (P. 293.) ^ ,^ ^ ^ ,^ ,, r 

It also appears that on Saturday, March 4, Mr. Saftord was called by Mr. Carlin, 
but he was not in the room. (P. 322.) „ c n- j 

It would appear, therefore, that the committee was prepared to call baftord as a 
witness while holding sessions in New York. 

CHARACTER OF SOME WITNESSES CALLED. 

Simon 11 Kugel, t^ice tried for conspiracy to conceal assets, both trials resulting- 
in a disagreement. When Judge Learned Hand sentenced Rogal and Brass, indicted 
as coconspirators upon their plea of "guilty, " he stated in open court that he did not 
intend to punish those defendants severely since the real guilty defendant had 
escaped . 

Judge Hand was not called as a witness. , j • ^.i, t> t 

Herman H. Oppenheimer, called as a witness, was deeply involved m the Kogal 
& Brass bankruptcv— afterwards indicted in the Samuels bankruptcy— and who has 
been so far successful in delaying the trial of his case. ,. , ■ . i v • 

Benjamin Slade, whose brothers are under indictment m this district and Ms 
brother. Maxwell Slade, under indictment in the State court m Brooklyn. Tins wit- 
ness was permitted to make statements to the committee which would not be permitted 
in any court in the country. , , r n i p -o 

Moses W Saxe, a partner of Simon H. Kugel, who indorsed a check of Rogal c^i Brass 
for $750 on the day liefore the petition in bankruptcy was filed, and who also gave 
money to Rosal when Rogal fled the jurisdiction to avoid service of process m the 
bankruptcy c-ourt. Saxe was strongly suspected of being a coconspirator with Kogal 

& Prass in the Kugel case. , . , , -..17^1'+^ 

Salic Goodman, an expressman, who was conclusively shown in the kugel c^e to 

have handled the concealed assets and who was identified by Miss ( urtis, ol Phila- 



108 H. SNOWDEN MARSHALL. 

delphia, and Mi\ Wakefield, also of Philadelphia, as the man who had concealed the 
assets in warehouses in Philadelphia. 

Keen & Bard — David Keen and Arthur Bard — associated in the moving-picture 
business, about whose conduct you are more familiar than I am. 

Marie and Frank Doran, her brother, well known as a couple of cranks and chronic 
complainers. 

Henry Siegel, who, according to his own testimony, ought to have been indicted. 
His character is best attested by his own testimony. At page 264, he testified that he 
said to the foreman of the grand jury: "You dirty son of a bitch, whoever told you I 
am anything like that?" The committee was offered Siegel 's statement, made in 
the district attorney's office, but they said to Hershenstein that it "was not necessary. " 

Jacob Engle, retained by David Slade to represent Frank D. Safford, who admitted 
on the witness stand that he had furnished Safford with money in the Tombs. 

Mayer Paltrowitz, who gave Safford, at the suggestion of David Slade, a position 
after Safford had spent several days on Long Island under an assumed name. 

Aaron Feldman, brother-in-law of Simon H. Kugel, moved the concealed assets 
from Bridgeport and Hartford, Conn., to New Haven, Conn., changing the cases in 
which the goods had originally been packed, and also changing the markings on the 
cases. His participation in the scheme was shown beyond the shadow of a doubt. 

You will note that I was examined particularly about my conduct during the 
Kugel trials, and that although I tendered the subcommittee the minutes of that trial, 
the minutes were not called for. 

If the subcommittee had examined the minutes in the Kugel case they would have 
found the close connection between Goodman and the concealed assets, Feldman and 
the concealed assets, Kugel and the concealed assets, and the close connection between 
Oppenheimer and Kiigel, and the very suspicious conduct of Saxe. 

You will note also that when William Leary, the deputy clerk of the court, was 
called with the records in the Oppenheimer case, it was clearly shown that Oppen- 
heimer had lied to the subcommittee; Oppenheimer was permitted to stand up while 
Mr. Leary was being examined to make explanations of his testimony. 

You will note in my testimony and in that of Judge Swann and that of Carl Whitney, 
the suggestion that the grand jury minutes in the Bard & Keen matter had been sub- 
mitted to the county district attorney's office. This was flatly denied by Mr. Brogan, 
the assistant who had charge of the matter, and also l)y mvself. 

R. B. W. 

April 12, 1916. 



4 



k 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



012 218 473 O 



